Returning to today's theme in the blog that the mainstream media/leftists are the primary racists in the country today, consider the way the media does polls.
They EMPHASIZE people as members of racial groups, rather than individuals. I have said before that these polls are RACIST, and I stand behind that conclusion. What else can you call an approach to elections that emphasizes people as defined by their racial group? That is the very definition of racism.
Let me repeat the dirty little secret again: WE ARE ALL MONGRELS. There is no such thing as a "pure" race in the world. "But...But.But" you sputter, people identify THEMSELVES as being of a particular race. Not necessarily. They do if you MAKE them--such as the pollsters try to do in these polls, and the media tries to do in USING the meaningless polls. You also make them so identify themselves, of course, either with leftist "identity politics" or overt discrimination by the type of bigots (those other than leftists) that the left condemns. Our goal should be to STOP people from defining themselves by their race, rather than to ENCOURAGE it.
Back to polls. My daughters are 50% Mexican-American--fully as much Hispanic as Barack "Spanish" Obama is African-American. How should they answer a pollster who asks them their race/ethnicity? If they don't take my advice, and LIE to pollsters automatically, their answer will depend totally on their mood. Even I could CLAIM to be "Native American". There is NO DEFINITION of racial "identity". Are we to go back to the infamous Black Codes, where you were labeled as "black" if you had 1/8 black "blood" (in air, the blood is RED and identifiable only as homo sapiens blood)? Nope, there is NO way to define who is a member of a certain race and who is not.
WHO identifies themselves to a pollster as being of a certain race? Obviously, someone whose IDENTITY is bound up in that role, even though it should not MATTER, or even be something they think about much. They certainly should ignore it in their goals in life. There was a time when there were official BARRIERS to people of certain races getting ahead. Now there are none. Unofficial barriers can, and SHOULD, be ignored. Thus, "races" in polls really represent a SELF-SELECTED sample (scientifically invalid). If pollsters ASSIGN people to certain races/ethnic groups by their own criteria, that would only confirm my point that these polls are RACIST. I make another one of those flat statements (where I am never wrong): Polls purporting to give percentages on the opinions of certain RACES (you rarely see "Orientals" listed) are absolutely meaningless (as are the polls breaking down the opinion of certain religious groups, etc.).
Do we need these polls to figure out how these people are voting? Nope. You can look at African-American precincts and pretty much tell how African-Americans voted (as you can Hispanic precincts, like in El Paso). In fact, that is MUCH more meaningful that a "poll". You can even look at how INDIVIDUALS in different parts of the country, of the same "race", might have voted DIFFERENTLY. For example, is the Republican problem with Hispanics, or with POOR PEOPLE (do poor Hispanics vote any differently than other poor people?). It is still correct that to overemphasize voting patterns of RACES is RACIST.
That is because there are MANY factors besides race that enter into how a person votes. Is it a MAJOR (albeit not the only) reason that African-Americans vote Democratic that more of them are POOR? Yes, Democrats are SNOWING the "poor", and doing their best to destroy them. But it is still difficult to ignore PROMISES meant to buy you off.
Then look at the ridiculous, RACIST, reporting of these polls. A week or so ago, the reporting was all about how Barack "Spanish" Obama had a problem with WHITE voters--the explicit or implicit message being that Obama, as a black man, was faced with distrust, or outright racism, from "white" voters. Horse manure.
Yes, you could note that John McCain is the one facing the RACISM, since he is getting almost NONE of the "black vote". It would certainly be MORE accurate (in vote percentage terms) to say that McCain has a problem with BLACK voters. These polls were cited for Barack "Spanish" Obama getting "only" a little more than 30% of the "white vote". McCain would KILL for that much of the "black vote".
Does all of this have anything to do with RACE. Objectively, it has very little to do with race. How can I say that? I can say that because it is TRUE, and the RACIST media is STUPID.
What percentage of the "black vote" did John Kerry get? You, I and everyone knows that he got the usual 90% of so of the "black vote" that Democrat Presidential candidates get. Obama may better that by 5%, with somewhat more turnout, but can hardly do much better than that. So MAYBE 5% of the "black vote" can be explained by race.
It is even more striking with the "white vote". How much of the "white vote" did John Kerry get? I am sure I could find the supposed answer to that, but it is not necessary to look. Kerry got 90%, or more, of the "black vote". He also got a MAJORITY (I think 60%) of the Hispanic vote (part of the "white vote", really). So Kerry HAD to lose close to the same percentage of the white vote that Obma is losing (30% is misleading, because that represents the "approval" number, rather than actual votes).
The FACTS (the mainstream media would never recognize one) are that LEFTIST DEMOCRATS have a problem with the "white vote" because they (including Obama) have consistently, blatantly played racial and class politics. Obama has no more a problem with the "white vote" than John Kerry had; MAYBE Obama loses about 3% on racial prejudice grounds, but may pick up the same number on "racial guilt" grounds).
I DARE anyone to challenge this reasoning. It is just STUPID to suggest, as the media does (ENCOURAGING racial division) that the "white vote gap" on Obama is because of RACE. If that were true, John Kerry would be President.
No comments:
Post a Comment