Comments on: Whitewashing the Election Results?

By: US Election On Best Political Blogs » Blog Archive » Whitewashing the Election Results?

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:54:42 +0000

[...] Whitewashing the Election Results? …do suggest that white support was higher in the polls than what occurred on Election Day. … This election certainly presented us evidence of [...]

By: US Election On Best Political Blogs » Blog Archive » racismreview.com » Blog Archive » Whitewashing the Election Results?

Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:20:58 +0000

[...] racismreview.com » Blog Archive » Whitewashing the Election Results? This election certainly presented us evidence of regional—as well as generational, educational, community type, etc.—differences among whites and how it affects their voting patterns. White denials of racism require selective … [...]

By: M.

M. — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:54:44 +0000

On the lower percentages of whites voting for McCain in higher percentage African-American states: All of the ideas sociologists have about perceived “threat” posed by minorities are 100% consistent with the pattern of substantially less Obama support for McCain in states with higher percentage African-Americans. See Blalock, Blumer, and many articles in soc journals. In higher percentage African-American areas, whites are more likely to feel their group is under threat from African-Americans. The fact that whites would much more heavily support McCain in states with larger shares African-American population is actually one of few things about the election that one could predict confidently from sociological theory–and this theory worked yet again.

By: JDF

JDF — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:22:38 +0000

Shari, thanks for your input and the data on the so-called “Hillary Effect.” These labels certainly put the onus on minorities for these phenomena (whether intended or not). It’s funny how pollsters and commentators will be quick to point out the difficulties in capturing the motivations of voters (which is indeed true) when discussing the “Bradley Effect,” yet they’ll turn around and discuss the appearance of a “reverse Bradley Effect,” in that whites lied to pollsters that they’d support McCain and then voted for Obama, while failing to provide any evidence of such a thing. I recall Chris Matthews saying that last week–even taking it as “fact.”

By: Shari

Shari — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:17:09 +0000

In analyzing the differences in female voting patterns it might be wise to make mention of a woman on the opposing ticket. While I doubt she got true Hillary voters I do not doubt that she may have gotten some women who otherwise would have voted Democratic or not voted at all.

Some data on the alleged “Hillary Effect” from CBS poll analyst. They asked all voters who you would have supported between Hillary and McCain.

52 percent said Hillary; 41 percent would have voted for McCain

16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton

Characteristics of these people:
53% were women
61% over 45
84% White
12% Hispanic (Hispanic were 9% of electorate as a whole)
21% said race was a factor in their vote
61% do not have a college degree

13% of Obama voters said they would not have supported Hillary 6% would have supported McCain 7% would not have voted

59% were men
74% White
17% Black (more than share of total Electorate)
5% Hispanic (less than their 9% of totl electorate)
58% no college degree

It is quite interesting that they ask McCain voters if race was a factor. But do not seem to have asked Obama voters if gender was a factor.

More whitewash? I’m with you that the way Hillary campaigned you cannot call it a Hillary effect. You could call it a sexist effect. Just like you could call the so called Bradley Effect a racist effect. They now have one more euphemism to whitewash oppression.

The Bradley effect and the Hillary effect as if Bradley and Hillary had anything to do with it.