Who “we”, white man?

I noticed over the weekend a gloomy post I had made back in August saying that Obama would certainly lose because of racism. I hoped no one else would notice. But then, this morning, I spotted the voting figures referenced on A Tiny Revolution which suggest that white racism was a huge factor: it was just outweighed by non-white racism. 43% of American whites voted for Obama; one per cent up on Gore’s figures eight years ago. But the non-white vote as grown, and was emphatically non-Republican, too.

I think we can take it as conclusive proof that God really does have a purpose for Sarah Palin. Without her, Obama might still have lost.

This entry was posted in Blather. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Who “we”, white man?

  1. Oliver says:

    I don’t think this adds up to strong evidence of racism, or at least not racism directed at Obama per se. In 2004 Kerry got 41% of the white vote, and Obama didn’t grow that share by being whiter. According to Johnn Heilemann’s reporting, one of the things the Obama campaign is particularly proud of is getting a higher share on the white vote than Kerry, Gore (42%) or Clinton (40% 1992, 43% 1996)Martin Kettle had a good p[iece last week pointing out that the big racial shift in teh election was a large increase in hispanic votes for the democrats.

  2. Charles says:

    I don’t see that as evidence of racism either. Gore got 50% of the vote, don’t forget – he didn’t lose the election by any number that really counts. Obama got, what, 53% of the vote? If his proportion of white votes was the same as Gore then… it was the extra black vote that won it. That’s surely affirmative action, not white racism.

    And as for Palin, surely God’s purpose for her is to show you how foolish people who believe in stuff can look whe ntehy run for office.

  3. ShaunR says:

    Since TV, what election was ever won by the older, balder man?

  4. Oliver says:

    Was Chirac fractionally balder, if younger, than le pen?

    Putin’s pretty bald…

  5. Chris Schoen says:

    I agree with Oliver: the important thing is that Obama didn’t lose any Kerry voters. Palin’s influence was marginal, in hindsight; McCain’s momentum was pretty stagnant before he chose her. What really sealed the deal was his hapless performance in the debates (older, balder, yes, and also more constipated.)

  6. What racism? Many Hispanics are white, after all. The term ‘white’ means ‘non-Hispanic white’ (and ‘black’ means ‘non-Hispanic black’).

  7. Roger says:

    “What really sealed the deal was his hapless performance in the debates (older, balder, yes, and also more constipated.)”
    I won’t ask for evidence about constipated.
    Actually, the U.S. economy’s crash just as McCain said it was fundamentally sound probably rattled peoples’ confidence in him.

Comments are closed.