| OBAMA’S VICTORY AND THE “RACE FACTOR” |
[Nov. 7th, 2008|03:16 pm] |
As expected, the following opinion has been formed on the Internet:
“American blacks are racist, since virtually all of them voted for Obama. Surely, they did it just because he is black, too.”
Sometimes, such opinion is being followed by an unsaid (or even said) conclusion – well, in that case it’s OK to be racist towards blacks, too. Just sometimes, not always.
Still, the issue raised is important enough to be considered.
Well, let’s look at the statistics.
Indeed, 95% of black Americans voted for Obama. It is quite a large number, yes.
But does it prove that Obama’s skin color was the only factor?
Let’s compare the election results to the ones in 2000 and 2004, when Democrats were represented not by Obama, who is half-black, but by all-white guys, namely Gore and Kerry:
1.In 2000, Gore was supported by:
-- 42% of whites
-- 90% of blacks
-- 62% of Latinos
-- 55% of Asians
-- 48% of all voters
2.In 2004, Kerry was supported by:
-- 41% of whites
-- 88% of blacks
-- 53% of Latinos
-- 56% of Asians
-- 48% of all voters
3.In 2008, Obama was supported by:
-- 43% of whites
-- 95% of blacks
-- 67% of Latinos
-- 62% of Asians
-- 53% of all voters
Of course, the numbers are rounded for convenience.
So, how much did Obama’s popularity increase among black voters compared with Gore/Kerry?
Let’s compare 95 (the 2008 percentage) with 89 (the average of 90 (2000) and 88 (2004)). If we divide 95 by 89, we’ll get 1.0674 (rounded).
Thus, Obama’s popularity among American blacks grew (compared to Gore/Kerry) by 6.74%.
In other words, yes, there is a definite “jump”. But not by 100%, by 50%, or even 10%. Even if there is a “race factor” here, it is not that significant.
But can this “popularity jump” be explained just by the “race factor”?
Let’s look at the same numbers for the white voters. Let’s divide 43 (2008) by 41.5 (the average of 42 (2000) and 41 (2004)). The result is 1.0361.
Which means Obama’s popularity among whites increased by 3.61%. Indeed, this is a lesser “jump” than the one among blacks. But can one be surprised by that? After all, there are still some white racists, too – even among Democrats, right?
Anyway, let’s also look at the Latinos and Asians.
Let’s start with the Latinos. Let’s divide 67 (2008) by 57.5 (the average of 62 (2000) and 53 (2004)). The result is 1.1652.
Which means Obama’s “popularity jump” among the Latinos is a whopping 16.52% -- much bigger than the one among blacks!
Now, let’s look at the Asians. Let’s divide 62 (2008) by 55.5 (the average of 55 (2000) and 56 (2004)). The result is 1.1171.
Thus, the jump among the Asians is quite big as well – 11.71%. Smaller than the one among Latinos, but still bigger than the one among blacks.
And, finally, let’s look at the whole country. Let’s divide 53 (2008) by 48 (both 2000 and 2004). The result is 1.1042.
In other words, Obama is 10.42% more popular among all American voters than his white Democratic predecessors, Gore and Kerry.
10.42% more among all Americans. And only 6.74% more among blacks.
Surely, I am not disputing the notion that there were some black voters who voted for Obama while totally disagreeing with his political ideas. Yes, they voted for him just because “he is black, too”.
But how big were the numbers of such black voters, if Obama’s popularity among blacks increased by less than it did among all Americans?
Besides, a subconscious desire to “vote for candidate like me”, as politically wrong as it is, happens to be quite common among all people – not just blacks.
Let’s consider another American minority – namely, Catholics.
At the first glance, Catholics do not seem to possess that “vote for candidate like me” desire at all. Indeed, Kerry, a Catholic, was supported by 47% of Catholics in 2004, while Gore, a Protestant, got 50% of Catholic vote in 2000, and Obama, also a Protestant, got even more – 54% of Catholic vote -- in 2008.
However, Obama should be compared not to Kerry, but to… Kennedy. For it was JFK who was the first (and so far only) Catholic American President. It was his election that finally answered the age-old question: “can Protestant America elect a Catholic President?” It was he who had to fight all kinds of prejudice (like “he’s gonna care about Vatican, not about America!”).
Thus, let’s compare the election of 1960 (when Kennedy was the Democratic candidate) and the ones of 1952 and 1956 (when Democrats were represented by Adlai Stevenson, a Protestant).
1.In 1952, Stevenson was supported by:
-- 56% of Catholics
-- 44% of all voters
2.In 1956, Stevenson was supported by:
-- 51% of Catholics
-- 42% of all voters
3.In 1960, Kennedy was supported by:
-- 78% of Catholics
-- 50% of all voters
Thus, we can compare Kennedy’s popularity with the one of Stevenson’s.
First, let’s look at the Catholic vote. Let’s divide 78 (1960) by 53.5 (the average between 56 (1952) and 51 (1956)). The result is 1.4579.
45.79%! Obama couldn’t even dream of such “jump”!
Now, let’s look at the country as a whole. Let’s divide 50 (1960) by 43 (the average of 44 (1952) and 42 (1956)). The result is 1.1628.
Of course, 16.28% isn’t bad at ball. Yet we can clearly see that the “popularity jump” among the Catholics is still almost three times as big as the one among all Americans.
While Obama’s “jump” among blacks, as we demonstrated earlier, is even smaller than the one among Americans as a whole.
Surely, one can object and say that religion is one thing, while origin is something completely different.
Fine, let’s look at a group that is considered a religious one in America, while in the former USSR it was (and still is) considered an ethnic one.
Yes, I am talking about the Jews.
Of course, there haven’t been any Jewish major party candidates in American history yet (Kerry and Goldwater don’t count – yes, they have ethnic Jewish roots, but their Christianity clearly precludes them from being considered Jewish in America). However, many of us remember Gore’s running mate in 2000 – yes, Joe Lieberman. Yes, that one – the one who is now an Independent and a supporter of McCain. Eight years ago, though, he was still a Democrat.
Now, the question is: did his religion influence American Jewish voters? Of course, he was just running for Vice Presidency, but still…
The answer is yes. Yes, his religion did influence the Jewish voters. In 2000, Gore was supported by 79% of the Jews. In 2004, Kerry got 74% of the Jewish vote, and in 2008 Obama got 78% of it.
Thus, if we divide 79 (2000) by 76 (the average of 74 (2004) and 78 (2008)), the result will be 1.0395.
Indeed, 3.95% is not a very big “jump”, compared to Obama’s 6.74% -- and especially with Kennedy’s 45.79%. True.
However, first of all, as we already mentioned, Lieberman was just Gore’s running mate, right?
And secondly…
We did compare Obama’s “popularity jump” among blacks, as well as Kennedy’s one among Catholics, with the one among all voters, right?
Let’s do the same thing here. Let’s measure Gore’s “national popularity jump” compared to Kerry and Obama.
We’d have to divide 48 (2000) by 50.5 (the average of 48 (2004) and 53 (2008)). The result would be 0.9505.
Which means that the “jump” seems to be negative, namely -4.95%.
Negative among all the voters, yet positive among the Jews. Thus, just like in Kennedy’s case, we can clearly see the “vote for candidate like me” effect by a naked eye – Gore’s (Kennedy’s) “popularity jump” is much bigger among Jews (Catholics) than among the general population.
At the same time, Obama’s “popularity jump” among blacks is even smaller than the one among all Americans -- albeit bigger than the one among whites.
Therefore, I think, we have to conclude that there is no reason to talk about some vicious “black racism” at work. Without a doubt, we have quite a few racists -- both black and white -- in America. Yet the “race factor” did not have any major influence on the election outcome. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
pasha71's journal