Subscribe via RSS Feed

Is West Virginia America’s Most Racist State?

[ 93 ] June 11, 2012 |

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz’s piece from a couple of days ago explaining his research connecting racially charged Google searches with voting patterns for Barack Obama has made the rounds. And while I’m not a political scientist and so won’t judge the quality of the research, it certainly passes the plausibility test in my mind. Since very few people will self-identify as racist, going to Google searches to find high concentrations of racially charged searches is as good a way as any to get a spatial sense of modern racism. Where do people make lots of racist Google searches?

The state with the highest racially charged search rate in the country was West Virginia. Other areas with high percentages included western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, upstate New York and southern Mississippi.

Little of this surprises, except maybe that eastern Kentucky isn’t listed. Appalachia was always the biggest spot of resistance to Obama, where you had insanely high vote totals for Hillary Clinton in the 08 primaries because a whole lot of people in Appalachia just weren’t going to vote for a black man. And just a few weeks ago, a convicted felon won 41% of the vote in the Democratic primary for president in West Virginia–I know it wasn’t a serious race, but there’s a good number of Democratic West Virginians who are flat out racist.

On the other hand, Obama also faces pressure from the Latino population for his continued record rate of deportations. I expressed optimism when Obama announced he would deprioritize the deportations of non-criminals, but that’s had almost no effect. Unfortunately, Obama used undocumented immigrants as pawns in his game to gain credibility from Republicans that he should have seen was never going to come. Given the massive resistance Obama faces from the people who hate him, some of which is racial and some of which is just political extremism on the right, the right way to govern would be back way off all deportations and work hard to bring Latinos deep into the Democratic coalition. Most Latinos aren’t going to vote for Romney anyway but with their rapidly growing numbers, making the Democrats the party of immigrants and their families is smart long-term strategy.

Share with Sociable

Comments (93)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Warren Terra says:

    there’s a good number of Democratic West Virginians who are flat out racist

    Please send medical attention to Manju’s residence immediately. I’m not sure he will be able to contain his excitement when he sees this post topic.

    • Manju says:

      Could we please stop acting as if I am frozen in carbonate in early 2012? Yup, I exploited and participated in a corrupt and evil social structure in my early rise to prominence here at LGM. But in the last several weeks, I must have spent aggregate days or weeks talking about this part of my biography, and my regrets. You liberals all talk about me as if at my funeral my pallbearers were all dressed like Jonah Goldberg.

      • elm says:

        I know what you’re doing here, but you are aware that the tense structure of your last sentence suggests that your funeral has come and gone.

        Is it possible you’re posting this from beyond the grave?

      • joe from Lowell says:

        I must have spent aggregate days or weeks talking about this part of my biography, and my regrets.

        You know who else talked a lot about his regrets?

        You just can’t let it go, can you? ;-)

        • Manju says:

          Wow, thanks…I never knew about this. Given Lewis’ street-cred, I can see why Liberals believe the falsehoods they do about Byrd.

          Interestingly, Lewis actually has his facts straight. He appears to know that Byrd’s conversion occurred after his rise to Senate Majority Leader…and that by the time he made his remorse public, Strom Thurmond was already dead.

          But he doesn’t say that outright. Its just that what he says is not is not incompatable with those facts.

          I can see how someone not in possession of the facts could read Lewis’ eulogy and jump to the conclusions that Warren came to earlier.

          • joe from Lowell says:

            I don’t understand what any of that is supposed to mean, or how it shows Warren to be wrong.

            But I’m perfectly ok with that! No need to put yourself out on my account.

            • Manju says:

              Lewis says:

              It became most evident that he had dramatically changed his views after the loss of his grandson in an auto accident. He then realized that black people loved their children just as much as he loved his own. Senator Byrd sought change and with that change he became one of the staunchest supporters of civil rights I had ever seen.

              what he does not say is that this occurred in 1982, and was made public only in 2005. Lweis also does not mention that this is when Byrd says he finally realized that Jim Crow was evil.

              But either date (1982 or 2005) makes Warrens description of Byrd false. Warren cites the 1950′s and restricts Byrd’s racism to his early rise to power.

      • Warren Terra says:

        I see what you did there, of course.

        To be sure, I haven’t noticed you repeating your once-reflexive “The Democrats Are The Real Racists” line in the last couple of months. But that doesn’t mean that you’ve stopped, only that I haven’t noticed it; and I haven’t noticed you backing down on that line, either – just (perhaps) discontinuing it.

        • Manju says:

          actually, what i did there is falsely claim that I stopped.

          This //’s your false claims as to when Byrd stopped supporting the “corrupt and evil social structure” (the 50′s?, “early rise to prominence”?).

          The correct date is either 2005 (when he publicly repented for segregation) or 1982 (when he says he finally realized that Jim Crow was wrong)

          • Prodigal says:

            He still managed to beat Trent Lott to the punch, though.

            • Manju says:

              Actually, Lott publicly repudiated Strom’s views in 2002, and apologized for the racist statement.

              So he actually beat Byrd to the punch by 3 years, and apologized for a far lesser crime.

              • Prodigal says:

                2002 was when Lott said that if America had elected a President whose only guiding principal was racism and support for segregation, “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

                It was also when his supposed “apology” was nothing mor ethan him griping about how “A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past”, when that was the only logical conclusion that could be drawn if you know anything whatsoever about the Dixiecrat party platform.

    • Anonymous says:

      upstate new york =racist, been there ,lived there , seen it !

  2. Pith Helmet says:

    Is it possible that the people in Eastern KY who HAVE internet service get it from ISPs in WV?

  3. dl says:

    ^ more likely: no racist google searches in ky b/c no internet? Or people unanware of Google, still using AltaVista?

  4. Jon H says:

    It ought to be possible to correlate this with activity in racist organizations. Robin! To the BAT-SPLC!

  5. rm says:

    Eastern KY counties have a much smaller population than the whole state of WV. Maybe they just didn’t stand out numerically. I can also tell you anecdotally that cell signals out that way can be spotty because of all the mountains (fewer every day! one day it will all be flat and we can all get five bars!) which would discourage a lot of smartphone use — I wonder if there are fewer smartphones up there. Whatever the explanation, I am certain that Eastern Kentuckians have as much racism as West Virginians any day of the damn week (and more on Sunday).

  6. Unfortunately, Obama used undocumented immigrants as pawns in his game to gain credibility from Republicans that he should have seen was never going to come.

    Is there any evidence that Obama knows what any segment of the electorate wants from him? I’m seriously asking. In this particular case, I think he assumed that Hispanics want comprehensive reform so much that they wouldn’t care about all these deportations, while Republicans care so much about security that doing the deportations would remove the main barrier for comprehensive reform. I can see how a David Plouffe would come up with this idea after a bunch of number crunching. I don’t see how anyone with an ounce of common sense would sign onto it.

  7. TT says:

    Unfortunately, Obama used undocumented immigrants as pawns in his game to gain credibility from Republicans that he should have seen was never going to come.

    I think expanding the phrase “undocumented immigrants” to “Democratic Party priorities in general” neatly sums up the first 31 months of Obama’s term. At least he appears to have learned his lesson from the (largely self-inflicted) debt ceiling fiasco.

  8. eric from cleveland says:

    This type of study is so flawed on sooo many levels it could only be done by a political scientist.

    • Malaclypse says:

      Seriously. Everybody knows that Liberals Are The Real racists, but do you see places like Taxachusetts scoring high? No, you see places full of Real Americans like western Pennsyltucky.

    • elm says:

      How is it flawed? Sweeping but vague declarations, combined with swipes at an entire academic discipline, are pretty unconving.

      • njorl says:

        It uses congressional races to normallize data. Any Democrat running against greenhouse gas legislation in WV or KY will outperform Obama for reasons which don’t necessarily involve racism.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if the same study found that the people living in the congressional districts where health insurers are headquartered are similarly racist.

        • elm says:

          I’m not trying to defend the study: I haven’t read it and only skimmed the NYT article on it. So it very well could be significantly flawed on so many levels. I’m just questioning Eric’s specific-free assault on my discipline. (Your criticism seems fair on its face. But why would there be a correlation between racist google searches and Democratic candidates opposed to greenhouse gas legislation which is an implication of your suggestion?)

          • njorl says:

            …why would there be a correlation between racist google searches and Democratic candidates opposed to greenhouse gas legislation …

            Obama’s perceived stance on global warming gives racists in coal country something to talk about. There isn’t as much to stir the pot in other areas.

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          It uses congressional races to normallize data. Any Democrat running against greenhouse gas legislation in WV or KY will outperform Obama for reasons which don’t necessarily involve racism.

          Except that this doesn’t explain why Obama ran behind Kerry in those jurisdictions, or the 2008 Democratic primaries…

          • njorl says:

            Here is something I posted a couple weeks ago.

            Year %D(WV)/%D(US) %D(KY)/%D(US)
            1992………1.13………..1.04
            1996………1.05………..0.93
            2000………0.94………..0.85
            2004………0.89………..0.82
            2008………0.80………..0.78

            It is the percent of the state vote garnered by the Democratic candidate divided by the percentage of the national vote. First collumn is WV, second collumn is KY. A “1.0″ means the state was exactly as democratic as the country. Below 1 means less Democratic, above 1 means more.

            There was a bigger drop from Clinton’s second election to Gore than from Kerry to Obama in both WV and KY. That wasn’t due to race. It’s due to coal.

            • joe from Lowell says:

              It’s due to coal.

              Wyoming Montana
              2004………….0.60………………….0.80

              2008…………..0.61…………………0.89

              Obama improved on Kerry in those coal-heavy states using your method, while the Democrats lost ground in West Virginia and Kentucky. There’s something else necessary to explain Appalachia.

              • Erik Loomis says:

                The thing people are leaving out here is the 08 primaries when Hillary is polling at 80% or more in some of these counties. That’s just not realistic without race as a factor. It’s so out of whack with the rest of the nation and there’s no issue other than race that would create such meaningful separation.

                • rea says:

                  Well, I suppose they could all be feminists, hoping for the first woman president . . .

                • rm says:

                  I think race may be the biggest factor, but it does not sound right to me that it is the only one. They love Hillary in her own right. Look at county-by-county electoral maps — and this was very clear from the maps from the Obama/Hillary primaries — and there is an Arkansas-through-Appalachia cultural/political region that all votes the same way, and shares most of the same ethnic origins and folkways. Bill is from this kind of place, and Hillary is one of them by marriage and her years in Arkansas. This region is, yes, incredibly racist and race is part of why they went for Hillary, but also she is someone they really, really love. I first moved here in 2000 and they loved Bill and Hillary then, when no one had heard of Obama.

              • njorl says:

                Wyoming and Montana won’t begin to lose one ounce of coal production until every mine in WV and KY are closed. That’s the economics of the current situation.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  1. That’s just not true. The lack of new coal-fired plants is already reducing demand for coal.

                  2. There seem to be an awful lot of moving parts in this description of voter behavior. Your argument, that people inclined to vote based on a candidate’s pro-/anti-coal position are not going to be turned off by an anti-coal politician until the wolf is at their door, doesn’t seem to match up with previous instances of anti-regulatory voting.

                • njorl says:

                  1.Reduced demand for coal has significantly more impact on WV than WY coal production.

                  2.My explanations are far, far simpler than the author’s.

              • njorl says:

                2000…….0.58………0.68

                Kerry made larger gains over Gore in those states than Obama did over Kerry.

                In all four states in question, the trends are consistent. The change from Gore to Kerry to Obama is unremarkable.

                • joe from Lowell says:

                  Kerry made larger gains over Gore in those states than Obama did over Kerry.

                  So what? The question on the table is whether there is a difference between the Kerry-Obama shift in western coal states, and the Kerry-Obama shift in eastern coal states. There clearly is: Democrats lost ground in Appalachia, and gained it in other coal-mining states.

                • njorl says:

                  But the Shifts from Kerry to Obama are indistinguishable from the shifts from Gore to Kerry. Do you think the people of WV consider Kerry to be blacker than Gore?

        • joe from Lowell says:

          An interesting theory. However, Obama ran six points ahead of Kerry in coal-rich Wyoming, and 8.5 points ahead of Kerry in coal-rich Montana.

          It’s an Appalachian thang.

          • njorl says:

            Wyoming and Montana mine coal more profitably than WV and KY. If CO2 emissions laws make coal more expensive to burn, every mine in WV and KY will close before the first one closes out west. It’s not going to get to that point any time soon, and the people of Wy and MT know it.

      • elm says:

        Oh, and as a follow-up to your hardy-har-har at the expense of political scientists: Seth Stephens-Davidowitz is a Ph.D. student in economics.

        • eric from cleveland says:

          The swipe at poly-sci folks was a bit childish so I do plead the 5th there. After years dealing with crap politcal studies though, I’m a bit jaded as to their methods and quality. But to answer your question as to whats wrong with it.

          Statistically:

          1)There is no control of any kind. Whether for population, use of google, use of internet, age of population, time of search, or culturally.

          2) He does not correlate votes (or lack of votes) for Obama to the searches. The old canard of peforming vs underperforming expected and past outcomes is based largely on speculative polling and statistically invalid.

          Logically:

          His inference is invalid. His thesis follows that

          1) these areas are more racist due to google search patterns.

          2) people who search like this are not likely to vote for Obama.

          My claim is that this inference is obviously invalid. (2) does not follow from (1) and (1) offers no support for (2). (1) does not even offer inductive support for (2). Furthermore, the words and phrases in (2) are evaluative which makes (2) an evaluative claim whereas (1) is a factual and thus non-evaluative claim. So one can tax the inference with the fallacy of deriving a value judgment from a factual judgment

          I could go on but didn’t want to take up too much time with a long discourse of statistics and logic.

          • Sockie the Sock Puppet says:

            Are you basing this on the op-ed or the academic paper? Because as the academic paper (there’s a link to it at the bottom of the Times’ article) makes clear, the assignment of degree of racism was based on Google searchers from before 2008. In fact, there seems to be a lot of correlation between the results of these searches and, say, polling results about inter-racial marriage.

            Didn’t delve too deeply into the academic paper yesterday and social science isn’t my specialty, so maybe there’s a problem with it. But I just wanted to make sure you weren’t slagging the op-ed for not having the rigor of the academic paper.

            • the assignment of degree of racism was based on Google searchers from before 2008

              As was stated in the op-ed, and which does not change anything. Neither does the interracial marriage polling correlation.

              Some more problems (with the caveat that I haven’t read the study, just the NYT post; if these are solved in the study go ahead and point that out):

              Another relevant variable that needs to be controlled for: extent and types of media coverage consumed by different ideological and geographic populations (right wing media hammer Obama while leaving Congressional candidates alone, which are consumed at different rates in different places by different people; this is especially a problem since he uses media markets instead of some other geographic unit of analysis)

              - The voting population is not the same as the googling population. At least not yet.

              - The conclusions are just ludicrous. Lots of social science has correlation is not causation problems, but usually not to this extent, so the grand claims the author makes are completely unjustified. Especially when the mechanism the author relies on is vague pseudo-sociological voodoo like “oh well people who search for racist jokes must be making racist votes too”, and especially especially when the author is writing in the paper of record that Obama lost 3-5% nationally because of this stuff. If the author is saying stuff like that he either doesn’t understand the limits of his methodology or he doesn’t care.

              My cynical opinion is that this guy is trying to make a name for himself and cooked up a way to shout racism that sounds convincing in order to write it up in newspapers and such. As elm says, he’s an economics student. Gathering this data and running these analyses aren’t the hardest things in the world. Worth a shot, the pay-off is pretty large.

              That might be too cynical. But that says something by itself, doesn’t it, that the best we can hope for is that the most cynical interpretation isn’t true. Bah.

          • elm says:

            His study, from what I can tell, certainly suffers from an ecological inference problem, as you suggest. Even if we accept that places with high googling of the n-word have more racists, we don’t know if it is said racists who aren’t voting for Obama. (The canonical example of this fallacy is that Hitler performed best in the elections in regions with lots of Catholics, but it wasn’t the Catholics voting for him, it was those who hated Catholics and whose hatred was stirred by their proximity. I’m not sure what alternative causal explanation can explain the pattern in this article, but ecological inference does make asserting causality even harder than in other regression analyses.)

            Looking at the tables in his paper (but not reading it, so if he explains it in text, I don’t know), it is odd that he doesn’t include demographic controls in the regressions. I guess the logic could be that demographics didn’t change much from ’04 to ’08, and since he’s studying change in votes only change in demographics would matter. But, of course, demographics did change some and he probably should have included them.

            In sum, from what I looked at, his causal argument strikes me as the most likely to explain the pattern of his data but we can be far from certain on that and, two, I’d like to see more robustness checks of his analyses before even accepting the pattern he’s claiming.

            But it’s an interesting research paper and a clever way to try to measure something that is dificult to directly measure.

  9. wengler says:

    I don’t know if West Virginia is the most racist state, but I do know that batshit crazy people with truly nutty made-up Obama stories are everywhere. The one thread that combines them all together is that Obama hates America and is almost certainly not American.

  10. njorl says:

    If you normallize using the national electrorate, rather than congressional races, WV and KY don’t show unusual voting shifts. The drop from Gore to Kerry is greater than the drop from Kerry to Obama.

    If Democratic congressmen are running campaigns that explicitly oppose any measures to restrict greenhouse gasses, they will significantly outperform Obama. The study in question will interpret this as racism. That is a serious flaw.

    • James E Powell says:

      The Upper Ohio Valley (pronounced ah-HI-ah). Even people who live there often refer to it as the armpit of America.

      But racism and racists permeate America. Anyone who has ever gone door to door in a political campaign can tell you that.

  11. Slocum says:

    As a former native, the tri-state PA, OH, WV area has the highest density of the worst human beings in the world in the US. It should be cordoned off, Escape from New York-style, but no one should be punished by being forced to go there. Too cruel.

  12. David M. Nieporent says:

    the right way to govern would be back way off all deportations and work hard to bring Latinos deep into the Democratic coalition. Most Latinos aren’t going to vote for Romney anyway but with their rapidly growing numbers, making the Democrats the party of immigrants and their families is smart long-term strategy.

    So, you’re saying that Obama should refuse to deport people who are unlawfully in the country in order to buy votes?

    • Malaclypse says:

      Nothing says “principled libertarian” like agreeing with mass deportations.

      • Aren’t you for the rule of law? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

        No not those nasty children that would be split up from their families or have their lives thrown into chaos because of deportation. Proper children.

        • Spud says:

          Is it me or have you ever noticed that when people use “rule of law” in arguments about immigration policies, they usually don’t know jackshit about the immigration laws?

          They are not “proper children” according to the nativist wackadoodles. Even though they are natural born US citizens, they want them deported. 14th Amendment be damned!

    • Spud says:

      So, you’re saying that Obama should refuse to deport people who are unlawfully in the country in order to buy votes?

      Of course. The same reason why Conservatives refuse to abide by 40 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence in order to buy votes.

      Besides Obama got hosed for his efforts. What is the point of doing something as a concession to opponents, if you get nothing in return.

      Especially since most of the people being deported posed little to no risk from a law enforcement perspective and probably would have been hard working tax-paying residents if we had saner immigration legislation and policies.

      The government does not have the resources to find and deport the 6-10 million illegal aliens in this country. It has to prioritize its resources when it comes to such things.
      Do you know who were really good at deporting millions of people at a clip? Nazis and Soviets.

    • joe from Lowell says:

      Obama should refuse to deport people

      Paperwork-deprived America-joiners, subject to deportation, don’t just show up at ICE offices. It takes a major bureaucratic effort to track down and round up such people.

      The President certainly has a range of discretion in deciding how much of a priority to make such efforts, as his ramping down of workplace raids and ramping up of deportations of convicts demonstrates. Indeed, the thesis of the linked piece is that Obama has used his discretion to ramp up deportations for political gain (in this case, in the hopes of getting an immigration reform bill passed).

      There is at least as much reason to read Erik’s statement as advising Obama not to allow political considerations to determine his handling of these duties.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Nieporent really threw people a softball this time.

      Libertarians are a total joke.

  13. Heron says:

    Most Latinos aren’t going to vote for Romney anyway but with their rapidly growing numbers, making the Democrats the party of immigrants and their families is smart long-term strategy.

    I heartily agree with this, but it’s my feeling that this ship has already sailed. We had a chance after 2008 to do this; if Obama had not ramped up ICE, or better yet if he had taken steps to either sideline it or reel in its worst abuses, then I think the Dems could have locked the Latino vote up rather nicely.

    • joe from Lowell says:

      I think you and Scott are missing something: the Democrats already have locked in the Latino vote.

      Barack Obama is going win 70% of the Latino vote. All of the polling shows him with leads of between 35% and 60%. Latinos are as solid a Democratic constituency as Jews, even after Obama spent his first term as History’s Greatest Deportation Monster.

      “Where else ya gonna go” may spark a “No fair!” reflex, but it is what it is.

      • Spud says:

        Kind of like the feminist or gay vote. They are being so demonized by the GOP that there isn’t much of a choice.

        Even though Obama is a deportational maniac, they know Romney is going to be a helluva lot worse.

        Short of murdering a mexican lesbian in cold blood on national television, he is going to carry those groups, if anything out of fear of what the Republicans will do against them.

        • joe from Lowell says:

          Kind of like the feminist or gay vote.

          Or Muslim voters.

          • witless chum says:

            At least here in Michigan, Muslims voted heavily Republican in 2000 (with a blip for a certain Lebanese-American gentleman whose name I will not utter here). Not so much anymore. That’s probably part of why Michigan wasn’t really very competitive in 2004 or 2008. Also, the Michigan Republican Party is plagued by weird bouts of incompetence.

      • Erik Loomis says:

        But there is “locked in the Latino vote” and “made Latinos passionate about voting for Obama and thus come out in higher numbers.” In some states, that could make a real difference. Nevada and Colorado for instance. Florida too.

        • joe from Lowell says:

          Indeed, and the phrase “making the Democrats the party of immigrants and their families” refers to the former, especially when it’s discussed as a “long-term strategy.”

          Tingles up people’s legs resulting in surges in turnout are not long-term strategy.

          John Kerry, Al Gore, and Walter Mondale winning the black vote by a huge margin is long-term strategy.

        • DocAmazing says:

          We’re having a hard time in SF and Oakland getting legal Latinos to register, and they’ll tell you exactly why. They fully expect the cops to hassle them over their registrations, and they have some very good reasons for thinking so.

          Dems have locked in the Latino vote,m but they’ve also shrunk it. Not smart, tactically or strategically.

          • joe from Lowell says:

            We’re having a hard time in SF and Oakland getting legal Latinos to register

            Same as always, then. Latino registration and voting rates always lag the population. This was true in 2008 as well. Attributing this longstanding trend to anything that happened in the past 3.5 years is faulty.

            Do you think the lower rate of Latino registration in 2000, 2004, and 2008 had nothing to do with fear of being hassled by the police?

  14. TheAJ says:

    Yes Erik, Mexican Americans are (supposedly) turning away from Obama because of the immigration issue because . . Mexicans only care about other Mexicans, and they only care about Immigration. That must be it. It couldn’t possibly be consecutive months of poor job reports, or the bleak economic outlook. Why would Erik think that Mexican-Americans would care about things, oh I don’t know, the fact that their mortgages are probably underwater if they live in suburban California, Nevada or Arizona. No, because there’s nothing inherently Mexican about housing, so they wouldn’t care about that. It has to be that Mexicans haven’t felt they are being pandered enough to.

    • Spud says:

      It couldn’t possibly be consecutive months of poor job reports, or the bleak economic outlook.

      Because those things are making it easy for crazy white people blame the Mexicans for taking away their jobs. “Immigration” also means for many people, using the force of law to harrass brown skinned people with accents.

      • TheAJ says:

        Okay, and naturally, the response by the Hispanic community is to . . not vote for Obama.

        Basically, we have on one hand, reports of Obama stepping up immigration enforcement, and on the other hand, a few self proclaimed Hispanic leaders vaguely discussing some sort of disillusionment among Hispanic. Because one is happening, and the other is supposedly happening, by jove, one must cause the other!

        Look, Bush tried to characterize Hispanics as a single-issue constituency with his immigration reform packages (which were much more generous than Obama’s).

        • Spud says:

          Okay, and naturally, the response by the Hispanic community is to . . not vote for Obama.

          Except when one listens to a Republican open his trap and makes significant open attacks on civil liberties. The there is the fear that as bad as Obama can be for them, there is a far worse alternative.

          Thanks to xenophobic hate-mongering by the GOP, they have turned at least 2 communities where they made some significant inroads into ones solidly in the opposing camp.

          Smooth move.

  15. joe from Lowell says:

    I’d like to point out that the sum total of the evidence presented for the theory that Obama is losing Latino votes is bupkiss.

    The leadership of issue-advocacy organization in Washington is saying that they are unhappy with Obama’s performance, and issuing dire warnings.

    Well, ok. There have been a whole lotta elections between the 2008 presidential election and today. Where is the evidence for this movement that so many people wish to discuss as if it were a given?

    • TheAJ says:

      Thank you, I read the whole article expecting some sort of numbers, the only one I found is taht as of last week HIspanics support Obama over Romney by over 2 to 1 still.

  16. FlipYrWhig says:

    Unfortunately, Obama used undocumented immigrants as pawns in his game to gain credibility from Republicans that he should have seen was never going to come

    What’s the basis for the claim that Obama is trying to “gain credibility from Republicans,” rather than, say, white working-class Democrats and the politicians they support? Especially since your point of departure in the post has to do with racial attitudes, it seems like a distinct possibility. Think of PA Congressional races like Kanjorski vs. Barletta. A lot of economic populists are unfriendly towards immigrants, and without those economic populists voting for Democrats, good luck dealing with class and labor issues.

  17. ironic irony says:

    Upstate NY? Really???

    I grew up two hours north of the City (in what quite a few NYers classify as “upstate”), and most people aren’t racist. Probably because that part of the state is more diverse than, say, Penn Yann or Batavia or something.

    I am officially ashamed.

  18. [...] skin privilege leads to perverse situations. It is true that Scots-Irish Americans are arguably among the more racist white ethnic groups. But this reality can easily be mitigated by a Marxist explanation of their [...]

  19. Sarah says:

    Ummm offense taken. Please conduct proper research before splashing verbal diarrhea all over the virtual world. I am from upstate NY and currently live in WV. Neither I, nor those people in my communities possess or display any sort of racism. There are poor intentions everywhere, as well as good ones. Just keep that in mind. NY/WV represent! Lol!

  20. wonderful issues altogether, you just received a logo new reader.
    What could you recommend in regards to your put up that you just made
    some days in the past? Any positive?

  21. Anonymous says:

    Remember Jesus died for all on the cross because he loved us all equally. When you truly accept, trust and focus on Jesus that He is your Lord and Savior then you will have love in your heart toward people of all nationalities, race or color…etc. because we are all God’s creation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.