Total Bias At Last

There is only one honest way to interpret the results of the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finding that Mitt Romney has 0% support among African-American voters, and it is neither good news for the country, nor complimentary to African-American culture, nor anything Barack Obama should be proud of. This is proof of total racial bias on one side of the racial divide, the result of intentional, shameless and apparently successful race-baiting by the Obama Administration, and the rationalization of racial bias among blacks, allowing black racism to not only thrive, but to be treated as acceptable.

There is no substantive reason for blacks to support Barack Obama to this unprecedented extent. Black unemployment has risen to near depression levels under his stewardship. More black families (and white families too) are dependent on food stamps than ever before. African-Americans are as concerned about their nation as any other citizens, and while reasonable people may disagree about the effectiveness and record of the Obama years so far, reasonable people do disagree, and for valid and formidable reasons. The arguments that President Obama’s leadership has failed are substantial, and any group of rational people looking at matters objectively will have a significant segment opposing his continued residence in the White House. If a large group of rational people have literally no such segment, there must be a reason. There is. Racial bias dominates reason.

Congratulations are due to Democrats, the media and the President himself: they have all worked hard for this. They have characterized legitimate efforts by state governments to control illegal immigration, out of control because of intentional Federal neglect, as racism. They have accused states that sought to ensure the integrity of elections as intentionally seeking to disenfranchise blacks. They have played the race card at every turn, with House members like Sheila Jackson Lee and popular black celebrities like Morgan Freeman making the indefensible accusation that opposition to a President with Obama’s record can only be explained by racism. They have worked over-time to tar the Tea Party movement as motivated by racism. Most successfully, they all worked in marvelous coordination to turn a tragic confrontation between a Hispanic man and a black teen into proof of racial bias in the justice system, with the President, disgracefully, personalizing the victim, Trayvon Martin, as someone who “looked like” him and could have been “his son.”

Good job, all! African-Americans are the worse for it. America is the worse for it. Still, it may allow President Obama to cling to power, and in the ethical calculation of his supporters, what’s a little spike in racism and racial tension if it accomplishes that?

President Obama said this week that he didn’t think “anybody” would say “yes, that in any way we have tried to divide the country.” I can state with 100% certainty that he’s wrong. I do. And the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, if accurate, shows that they have succeeded.

______________________________

Facts: Washington Post

Source: East Idaho News

Graphic: Zero Hedge

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.

19 thoughts on “Total Bias At Last

  1. Jack,

    I suggest you give black people’s intelligence more credit than to suggest that they’ve been collectively and completely bamboozled. Or, for that matter, that their thinking is all wrong. It just smacks of you and you alone having access to revealed truth. Doesn’t speak well for you. 0% support on a poll, and your conclusion is – they’re wrong?

    Go talk to a thoughtful, intelligent black person about these issues. I’ll be happy to introduce you to several. They’ll be the first to admit dysfunctions in the black community, and collective self-deceit on occasion, even wink-win nod-nod thinking (a la OJ). But they also know, very well, on which side their bread is buttered. They are not stupid.

    Polls don’t just indicate how deluded everyone else is, sometimes they speak someone else’s truth that needs hearing.

    • Brave words, Charles, but you are whistling in the dark. Rational groups people don’t agree 100% on anything, unless there is a confounding factor, like a threat, or the situation is so extreme that no other position is possible. Mitt Romney isn’t Simon Legree, of the Grand Wizard of the KKK. My faith in African-Americans leads me to believe that the poll is wrong. If it is right, however, you are wrong.

      • AGREED, the poll is wrong. USA has some 40,0000,000 African-Americans, and the pollsters queried a whole 100 people? It is too funny, but also sad that so many take polls as dogma.

            • Jack,

              The African American component of the 1,000 was 100. This is slightly less than the percentage of blacks as a percentage of the US population.

              I see others have made this point.

          • They polled 1000 voters, but only ~120 of those voters were black. So, for purposes of knowing what black voters said, the sample size was effectively 120, not 1000.

            Of that 120, 94% – not 100%, as you seem to be saying in your post — said they were intending to vote for Obama. Since this is pretty similar to how Obama did against McCain, I think what this suggests is that most black voters who voted for Obama continue to think he’s better than the opposition.

            The remaining 6% of black voters were undecided. The poll overall had a margin of error of 3%, so really the percentage supporting Mitt Romney could be anywhere between zero and 3% (or even 4% – the margin of error would be higher since the sample of black voters was pretty small).

            So I think you should maybe relax a little, Jack. The poll doesn’t really mean zero; it means somewhere between zero and four percent. And the poll definitely isn’t saying that 100% of African Americans plan to vote for Obama.

            Also, with all due respect, you seem to think that if Obama does well among black voters, all the “blame” (I’d say credit) should accrue to Obama and the Democrats. There are actually two candidates running for president. If Mitt Romney and the Republicans are massively unappealing to black voters, surely at least part of the responsibility for should lie with the GOP, but you’d never know that reading your post.

            • 1. Your point that the 0% headline is misleading is well taken.
              2. It has been said in various ways by several black columnists, politicians and others that if economic conditions for blacks were the same and there was a white President in office, there would be a march on Washington. Do you agree? And if that’s true, what does that tell us?
              3.The Democrats have been race-baiting since 2008. Romney has said and done nothing to justify less support from African Americans than past GOP candidates. I think it is fair to say the Democratic tactics have worked, and they are divisive, and they are unethical and unfair.
              4.A rational voter, whose welfare and prospects under any President has diminished, would consider an alternative. That should be a color-neutral fact. Why are A-A voters committed to Obama to that extent?
              5. Yes, I believe a 95% support rate is convincing evidence of bias (and fear, via “they will put you back in chains” fearmongering) as well. 0% just makes the case starker, but I’ll take the same position at 95%.

              • 2. I don’t think that would be the case if the white President in office were a Democrat.

                3. You’re stating a lot of partisan opinions that I don’t agree with, but that I also don’t want to get into long arguments about, because I have other things going on this week which are taking my time.

                Why voters vote one way or another is a complicated matter, and I don’t think you have enough evidence to justify a deduction, and especially not to justify broad-based generalizations about a diverse group of people. (Even if lots of Black people agree that they don’t want to vote for Mitt Romney, it’s wrong to assume they all have identical reasons.)

                Speaking only for myself, I think that Mitt Romney’s proposed policies would be extremely harmful to huge numbers of Black Americans – more so than either McCain’s proposals or Bush’s actual policies. Romney’s budget, insofar as he’s described it, is genuinely radical in its cuts to social welfare programs, even compared to past GOP candidates. I’m not saying that this is why all Black voters prefer Obama over Romney, but it’s certainly why some Black voters who are like me (i.e., policy geeks) do.

                4. A rational voter might believe that the bad economy has been mostly caused by Bush, and Obama has in fact improved the economy (compared to a hypothetical world with no Obama policies), despite the sabotage of a filibuster-drunk GOP. You may not agree with that, of course, but rational people can disagree on this matter.

          • The poll was 1000 people, but the subgroups are necessarily smaller. A random selection of Americans would only get about 120 black people, which would greatly increase the margin of error of the survey.

    • Let me add: I know many thoughtful, intelligent black people: in fact, I don’t know any who are not intelligent and thoughtful. Any one intelligent person of any creed can mount a valid argument for or against the Presidency of Obama, and that proves nothing. 0%, by definition, included all the non-thoughtful individuals, however, and thus the statistic is res ipsa loquitur.

  2. Not to jump the argument, but I find the protestations fascinating. We are told that substantial Republican opposition to President Obama MUST be based on race, but 100% support of President Obama (which is the more damning way to describe 0% support for his opponent) is completely objective.. This virtually defines “double standard.”

    Then there is this: if a poll stated that 0% of white voters supported Obama, everyone, including me, would agree that the US had passed into a new and frightening stage of racism…and that is despite the fact that I believe supporting Obama is irrational based on his record. Yet we avoid making the same assessment when 0% actually appears in a poll involving black support of Romney, who is as white as they get. Why is that?

    (it’s a rhetorical question.)

  3. I would point out that while the poll indicates zero percent support for Mitt Romney, many of your comments seem to assume one-hundred percent support for Obama. The two do not equate, and the latter is not what the poll found.

    The article that you link to also reminds us that Obama won the African American demographic by ninety-five percent in 2008. If the poll is completely accurate (obviously it isn’t), it actually shows a reduction in black support for President Obama of one percentage point. This does not support your thesis that rhetoric on the part of the president and his party has cajoled lock-step support from the entire demographic. If that was their four-year goal, I’d say they were remarkably unsuccessful.

    To the contrary, the data indicates that a statistically significant portion of the black community either never supported the president or agrees with you that his performance has been lacking. It just happens that the data also indicates that those people haven’t come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney would represent them much better than the current president. Surely Romney’s own campaign is responsible for some of that.

    I agree with Charles above that the black community knows on which side their bread is buttered. Poor performance on Obama’s part was never going to translate to a major increase in support for his Republican opponent. There are perfectly defensible reasons for why that contrary support would have actually gone down. There may be indefensible contributing factors like race-baiting on the Democratic side, by come on, Romney didn’t have that much to lose. Obama isn’t responsible for the previous several decades of American politics.

  4. Let’s cut the crap, shall we? Polls mean nothing. They are set up — with both the questions and the samples — to prove the point that is wanted. Zero percent of the black population will vote for Romney? Really? Is that race-based or issue-based?

    I was employed for six years by a black think tank, and when it demonstrated that after-vote polling was mostly incorrect, it was criticized up and down the line. Why? Because people don’t want to know the truth, and that is that people LIE in polls.

    To paraphrase Martin Luther King: ‘Until we (the black population) reach the level of self-criticism, then we will not be able to join the great, heterogeneous society that is America.’ We haven’t gotten there yet, according to the polls. So we put up with the race-baiters, and whom does it hurt? Remember the response when Bill Cosby had the guts to venture into this “self-criticism” before the NAACP? He was an ‘Uncle Tom.” Suppose we should hate him too, because he had the unmitigated nerve to call on blacks to work harder to help themselves and by virtue of his own talents he is a multi-millionaire and therefore must be EVIL and not supportive of blacks.

    To believe, in 2012, that the black population (15%?) is a monolithic thinking and voting block is just ridiculous. I freely admit that I didn’t vote for Obama, but I was proud that America had crossed that great Rubicon and elected its black President — by a majority of whites, I might add. But now, his administration is trying to separate out and marginalize the ‘people of color’ so that he can be re-elected. It is sad. It is not presidential. It is a blot on what WAS a national achievement.

  5. Author says headline is misleading… Why the hell is anyone reading his bullshit? More hyperbole and double talk, it’s the American way.

    • Too inarticulate for me, bbl. I didn’t say MY headline was misleading. I said that the headlines of the stories proclaiming o% support of Romney were misleading. You really want to duel over whether 95% support of Obama shows less bias than 0% of Romney? Be my guest. 95% is race-based; there is no other explanation of it with the current economic figures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.