SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (418474)9/20/2008 12:02:00 PM
From: Ruffian  Respond to of 1577902
 
Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

Adjectives that describe blacks

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.

On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.

The AP-Yahoo News poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone. Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes — including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

———

Associated Press writers Nancy Benac, Julie Carr Smyth, Philip Elliot, Julie Pace and Sonya Ross contributed to this story.

news.yahoo.com



To: longnshort who wrote (418474)9/20/2008 7:54:12 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577902
 
Not just one stamp; an entire collection


WWRD ... What Would Roosevelt Do?
______________________________________________________________

By Richard Reeves
Syndicated Columnist
SEPTEMBER 19, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Like most political journalists, I don't claim to know all that much about economics or the details of the current economic crisis. Usually, we don't make enough money to be players. The only stock I've ever owned was in companies I worked for that had small stock-option plans for small players.

Now, looking at the glazed eyes of economists and Wall Street types being interviewed around the clock on television, I realize they don't know what's happening, either. The last thing those "experts" said I can remember was a guy screaming, on CNBC, I think, that you were out of your mind if you thought Bear Stearns was in trouble. That was the day before Bear Stearns was bailed out by the government.

So, this is the sum of what I think is my knowledge, most of it political:

— In real capitalism, like the game of Monopoly, one person would eventually end up with all the money. I don't know who he is. He may be Chinese or a prince in Saudi Arabia or the owner of one of those big houses along the beach on the East End of Long Island, a guy with a private air force.

— To avoid the downside of real capitalism, which is quite similar to its predecessor, real feudalism, we form governments to regulate financial affairs to buffer its impact on most of the people most of the time.

— The real capitalists figure out ways to change or get around the regulations to increase the rate of concentration of wealth in their hands or control.

— When the capitalists go too far, the government, at least in the most capitalist of countries, the United States, bails them out and tells them not to do it that way again.

— Then whoever is in charge of the government looks for a bracelet with the letters "WWRD." "What Would Roosevelt Do?" Franklin D. Roosevelt, that is, of course. Presidents and their appointees — even those who made their reputation attacking "tax-and-spend" Roosevelt programs during and for the decades after the Great Depression — dig up FDR's programs and then offer up a modern equivalent to try to prevent public panic.

So it should be no surprise in the current crisis when the secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, announcing one of the first of what he called "powerful tactical steps to increase confidence in the system," was actually tapping something called the "Exchange Stabilization Fund," created by FDR in 1934 as part of the New Deal.

There is more than a little irony in this because Paulson was appointed by a president, administration and party that has spent the past 70 years attacking most of what the New Deal did or tried to do. President Bush and the Republican Party came to Washington this time in the tradition of President Ronald Reagan — and a large part of Reagan governance was to deregulate any business, industry or financial activity in the Yellow Pages. In fact, the Reagan deregulation force was so strong that even the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, strove mightily, in his own words, to end forever the "era of big government."

Their alternative turned out to be big business, including mortgage companies, investment banks and insurance companies so big they could not be allowed to fail without risking a collapse of the economy of what used to be called the world's only superpower, the United States, and even dozens of foreign economies tied to America in what we have celebrated as "globalization."

Well, big government is back with a desperate vengeance. The Exchange Stabilization Fund will be used as cover to distribute up to $50 billion to clients of money market funds, which were created as banking instruments that could generate greater dividends than ordinary bank accounts precisely because they were not backed and regulated by big bad government.

Oh, I left out one thing: In one way or another, paying taxes or paying interest on gigantic loans, will be loaded onto the backs of average citizens, who will be told all the while that they are being saved by the wisdom of political leaders and financial masters of the universe, who have already taken their cut of the big pie in the sky.
_____________________

*Richard Reeves is a visiting professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and the former Regents Professor of Political Science at UCLA. He has also taught political writing at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. His weekly column has been distributed by Universal Press Syndicate since 1979 and appears in such newspapers as the Los Angeles Times, The Denver Post and Dallas Morning News. He is a former chief political correspondent of The New York Times and has written extensively for numerous magazines including The New Yorker and The New York Times Magazine