Why do Bush Supporters & Other conservatives have a Stronger Bias Towards Blacks?

I agree with what you say about statistics being a bit misleading at times, one must always be cautious and on guard.

I didn't post a study from '96 to fool anyone, it was just one I found.

As to population size, 800 vs 3m people, this is standard practice from the days of Bernays and Gallup and is at the heart of market research and polling. Of course it can be misleading and misrepresented; I have a feeling that is not the intention of the research as it is meant to be non partisan.

Nonetheless, what I understood and still understand about wealth takes some math. Look here for the break down of what constitutes conservatives, democrats and independents :
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=944
put that together with the wealth numbers and you have...

41% of 81 enterprisers, 30% of 82 of soc conservatives and 10% of 58 of pro-gov't conservatives are 'wealthy'. That is: 81*0.41 + 82*0.30 + 58*0.1 = 33.21 + 24.6 + 5.8 = 63.61 of 221 are 'wealthy' or 0.2878 or 29%

For the dem's it is: 59*0.41 + 89*0.08 + 84*0.15 == 43.91 of 232 are 'wealthy' or 0.18926 or 19%

29 > 19; conservatives are wealthier. Misleadingly, , there are ~50% more wealthy conservatives than dems. I didn't include independents because I didn't feel like doing the math, but most are republican leaning anyway which I surmised would only make the conservative group wealthier. The data does seem to support this. As to exclusionary, it seems more of the population of dem's ARE the ones being excluded. I do think your statement was opinion.

if I have done something wrong here, please do let me know.

anyone have any other ideas why this bias could be stronger with conservatives?

Just because it's common practice doesn't mean I like it. I'm quite aware it's common practice.

"research is meant to be non partisan"? Heh.

thought you would get a kick out of that.. but they *do* say that.

You have assumed that the split of weathy vs. non-weathy within a group is divided the same as the split in party affiliation.
Your assumption would only be valid for samples where there was no correlation between the variables.
If there is a skew with wealth, we would expect this to not be true.

erck!?
I see.. please disregard, the last as my math was fuzzy... I forgot to include the distribution of those groups within the affiliations.. the way I did it assumes the group sizes are equal!?!?!

fixed (i think), using the breakdowns of the party as percentage of population:
republicans
(81 * 0.41 * .1) + (82 * 0.30 * .11) + (58 * 0.1 * .09) = 6.54900
republican middle roaders
(39 * 0.39 * 0.11) + (13 * 0.3 * 0.09) + (8 * 0.22 * 0.1) = 2.2001
8.74901% of total population are wealthy

dems
(59 * 0.41 * .17) + (89 * 0.08 * .14) + (84 * 0.15 * .1) = 6.3691
dem middle roaders
(39 * 0.05 * 0.11) + (13 * 0.02 * 0.09) + (8 * 0.22 * 0.1) = 0.4139
6.783% of total population are wealthy

that makes the population of wealthy republicans ~22% greater w/r/t wealthy dems.

edit: sorry, I goofed not once but twice by not including middle roaders.. warning: BE WARY OF MY RESULTS!! I guess I don't stand corrected.. but the math may be corrected again.

This audio commentary states it best..

*** LINK NOT SAFE FOR WORK ***

Gold Digger Remix

Quiting would not get her anywhere in politics. A sudden turnabout and saying "I was just doing what they ordered me to would get her very far.

Right now I think she is stuck between doing her job and pleasing those who control her immediate future. While no announcedment to run is there, I do expect her to be a part of future politics.

*breaks into song

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule

/ E B7 / - E / E7 A / B7 EE7 /

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark
Are dancing cheek to cheek
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school

/ A - / E - / B7 - / E E7 / A - / E - / B7 - EA EB7 EA EB7 /

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks
And the rich folks hate the poor folks
All of my folks hate all of your folks
It's American as apple pie

But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans
'Cause it's very chic
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand
You can tolerate him if you try

EVERYBODY SING!

She was asked if she agreed with the following statement:
"If nominated I will not accept, if elected I will not serve."

She said no.

I can't think of a more SERIOUS person for the job. Your lack of objectivity is not a good argument against Condi.

It bothers me that there is a serious conversation about a candidate that has an oil tanker named after her...

How soon we forget

It's quite logical because I am basing it on what George Bush said to Richard Nixon, "They have the papers." Nixon then resigned rather than go through impeachment. It is certainly not a stretch that several members of the current administration have resigned without comment. So it is not my opinion that she'd quit if she were going to run, it's just how it would go down. She could then write a book about the whole thing and jump right back in with a relatively clean slate.



That is a far, far different statement from "I am not going to run" which she has said. Your lack of reading comprehension is not a good arguement for Condi. I'm sure anyone who isn't running but into politics/etc, yet is somehow mysteriously nominated and elected would probably take the job. Either for simple patriotic reasons or otherwise.

And?

What did the Clintons do to Ron Brown and all the other people that turned up dead?

Dead People> Oil Tanker

Actually, that IS your opinion. Sorry.

Why?

interesting train of thought, but I'm not sure what doesn't wash exactly. the best I can make out from your statements is that somehow you are meaning that white liberals do not live in ethnically diverse areas either so proximity could not be a cause bias. If so, I think you forgot to say:
doesn't that put them in proximity? Even segregated people if they are not actively trying to remain segregated (I don't know any white liberals segregating themselves, that would be like the cardinal sin of liberalism) then they will be proximate.. right? On the other hand, those I know living in gated communities are predominately conservative; to me gated conotates active segregation. ??


what!? "..like to self segregate.." one "likes" ice cream, or sex.. or... sex with, er.. ice cream.... .. but I have trouble with "liking" to seperate yourself from others. Do *you* actually "like" to seperate yourself from others.. and to do it with the purpose to maintain community? I think it is more representative of what is happening to say that people "like" to stay within a comfort zone and network. But I think it is for much different reasons than to maintain community. I mean, who would say "I like to live in this ghetto / crack stack of public / low income housing with my high income job and MBA since it is nearer to my community than living large, 20-40 min away in the burbs"? ... no one. N O O N E.

I believe self segregation is a myth. A myth perpetrated because people either want to explain why the area they live is not racially diverse, or for those of a differing ethnicity to explain away their fear of having to deal with the racial shit that goes down when they move into a neighborhood where they are a minority.



oh, and ..
..right, so following that logic..
+30,000 dead in iraq to find WMD's or was it because he was the 'guy who tried to kill my dad'? >>>> an unsubstantiated death.

ok, but I don't see how my response to you demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension skills.

I have a question when it comes to race in general why do blacks judge despise and hate other races yet complain how white ppl are racist?

I think the Lesbians and Homosexuals have a better purpose in the question why are they being hate on than the black people.

P.S. I am not Gay and I am not white man. I am Biracial and Straight. I am just saying Black ppl are so hypocritical compared to the homosexuals and their cause. Seems to me race is only an issue to the black man while prejudice against homosexuals are worldwide.

Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it.

Oh my bad, I had thought perhaps you were arguing from a potentially valid position of "She said she'd accept the job". The disconnect between accepting the job and running for the job is huge. Thus I had thought that whatever you were actually reading that made you think she would run and then quote that must be a result of reading her response incorrectly. Running Rice in 2008 would be as bad as running Clinton in 2008. If you honestly want republicans to give it a go, I highly recommend calling her and saying you'd vote for her. Since she isn't running though, I'd still like to hear who might be good choices (who might actually run) for either party.

Hhahahahahahaha

I hope it was a joke since it was so poorly worded.


Since most black people (in the US since I guess we are talking about Black Americans) are a mixture of almost every race on the planet, this just makes no sense.


I'm black and for the record I don't like anyone.


This page lists a lot of definitions of racism. Generally racism is considered racial prejudice with the ability to use power over others. Racism is pretty much embedded in Western culture. The fact that most black Americans are even here in America is the result of racism and oppression, and theft. When you have a group of Europeans that systematically traveled around the World, killing, enslaving, forcing Christianity, raping, pillaging, etc, that is racism.


Anyway back on topic. The Democratic Party is more racist than the Republican Party. There are no Black Americans holding any real positions of power in the Democratic Party. They seem to foster the lapdog, Massa-house slave mentality.

I agree with most of your post, except one thing... You forgot to mention the fact most black slaves brought here were bought from other blacks. The whites did travel looking for slaves, but the black slaves were actually enslaved by their own people in most cases.

Also, I believe racism is not an issue of who has power over whom, but rather racism is when a person believes his/her race is superior to other races. It's just as racist to be a black who feels whites are inferior.

That particular definition is, I suspect, an artifact of political correctness. I can't tell you how many times I've heard variations on the phrase "black people/hispanic people/asian people can't be racist, because they aren't the majority in America", using basicly that definition of racism.

I assume you mean the definition given by Eboni. My definition doesn't allow minorities the right to be racist without being considered racist. I get that definition from dictionary.com ...

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

you should get some Lithuanians to help with the definitions...

they are the best race at defining things...

You are correct Kevin, most slaves were bought from African tribes or capture with this assistnace of Africans, Europeans then and most now can't navigate Africa safely without the help of a native African. The different is racism (these people are less than human and barely above animals, remember the 3/5th law) that made Europeans think it was ok to enslave Africans in sub-human conditions. In Africa slaves were treated quite differently and weren't viewed as subhuman, they just lost a war.

Many Western African Nations that prospered and became rich from the slave trade have made jestures toward the decendants of African slaves in the US by offering them free land plots to create communities in their country. I had a friend of mine move to Ghana to do just this and is loving it. I think people in the US are still waiting on that 40 acres and a mule from the Us Government.