RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, November 1 - 4:33pm

Link

Edit

The title of this thread reflects the sentiments of an acquaintance of mine, who argues that, despite what they say to pollsters, most whites are quite willing to express their true (racist) feelings behind the curtain of a voting booth.

I expressed my disagreement as follows:

Douglas Wilder, an African American, was elected Governor of Virginia, a Southern state, in 1989. True, blacks comprise 20% of Virginia’s population compared to 13% nationally, and whites, 73%, compared to 80% nationally. So, a large black voter turnout may have helped tip the scales in his favor. But Deval Patrick, another African American, was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2006, a state in which blacks comprise a mere 7% of the population, and whites 86.5%. So, in a state in which blacks had a lower percentage, and whites a higher percentage, than they do nationally, a black man was nevertheless elected governor. It would seem then that, after closing the curtain, a majority of white voters are indeed willing to vote for a black political leader.

Also, the smart money is on Obama. By “smart money,” I mean the actual betting that is taking place in which people are willing to put their own money at risk in predicting the winner. Betting pools like this are much more accurate than the latest Gallup poll and are virtually never wrong. Right now, they favor Obama by a wide margin.

On 20/20 last night, John Stossel discussed this phenomenon in his interview with James Surowiecki, the author of The Wisdom of Crowds. Surowiecki argues that "crowds" or collective bodies can make intelligent decisions under certain well defined conditions: "The crowd needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table. It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer. It needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict. And the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks."

These conditions would seem to be fulfilled in betting pools in which people are risking their own money and basing their decisions on their own information. So, I think it's virtually certain that Obama will win the election, and probably by a fairly wide margin.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/01, 4:43pm)

Post 1

Saturday, November 1 - 6:52pm

Link

Edit

I voted for Richard Austin in every election until he retired. He was the Secretary of State in Michigan for many years. Oh, and he was a black guy.

I don't have a problem voting for a black guy, or Japanese woman, for that matter.

These conditions would seem to be fulfilled in betting pools in which people are risking their own money and basing their decisions on their own information. So, I think it's virtually certain that Obama will win the election, and probably by a fairly wide margin.

Ieeegeeeezesh!

I can only comfort myself by thinking, "how much damage can he do in four little years?"

Post 2

Saturday, November 1 - 7:14pm

Link

Edit

Teresa wrote,

I voted for Richard Austin in every election until he retired. He was the Secretary of State in Michigan for many years. Oh, and he was a black guy.

Well, of course! I would not have thought that there is anyone on this forum who would abstain from voting for a truly qualified political candidate simply on account of race or ethnicity . . . or gender, for that matter.

Of course, one can't say the same thing about the general population. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that most people today are not prejudiced against blacks. Considering what this society was like just 60 years ago, I'd say that's quite an accomplishment, and one that should not be overlooked in assessing the progress we've made on civil rights.

Now, if only we could expect similar progress in advancing Objectivism and promoting the cause of individual rights.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/01, 7:48pm)

Post 3

Saturday, November 1 - 7:19pm

Link

Edit

"I can only comfort myself by thinking, 'how much damage can he do in four little years?'"

Consider that the "judge" who approved homeless voting from benches in Ohio was a Clinton appointee. Consider how close we came to having the Supreme court allow algor's attempted Florida coup. Be very afraid.

Post 4

Saturday, November 1 - 7:44pm

Link

Edit

I would say that it is very much the opposite. Obama will win because he is black (and because McCain has so little to offer). Obama beat Hillary which showed that any bias against a black, at least among Democrats, is less than any bias against a woman (or least against Hillary).

His popularity in the polls shows that he is getting a large portion of white support. The only mention of race in the entire campaign has been when Obama supporters have jumped on this or that as 'playing the race card' or made accusations of using 'code words.' I've listened carefully and heard no racism at all. (Not counting Rep. Murtha, who is a different kettle of stinky fish :-) I'm sure that there are some folks that will vote against Obama because he is black, but I think we have reached a point in history where that number is really tiny.

The only thing in the presidential race that is racist is the extremely high percentage of blacks that are voting for Obama. Sorry, but I just don't buy that 90 some percent of black Americans just happen to find agreement with Obama's policies and positions to such a high degree and that skin color is just coincidence. I also suspect that being black gives a special status in the eyes of the press and liberal elites - especially if it can be done as an Harvard grad.

Many black Americans must feel a psychological pull - a yearning to see this symbolic death of America's racist past - to see, in concrete form, the end to any lingering sense of being second class. I can imagine that it will help to destroy the idea that there are limitations that race impose on how far one can rise, and these are good things. I just wish he were worthy of such an exalted position. The first black president should be someone worthy of the office - someone like Thomas Sowell would be nice. I can also imagine that there is a portion of the black population that find his share-the-wealth position in agreement with a victims-view of politics and a sense of entitlement. But these are things that it isn't politically correct to say.

Post 5

Saturday, November 1 - 8:08pm

Link

Edit

Ah, and here I keep thinking that all people, even you and I and the person who sanctioned your last post, we all have free will.

Nobody's free choice has anything to do with who wins, or how he himself votes?

Post 6

Saturday, November 1 - 8:40pm

Link

Edit

Ted,

I tried to figure out what you were saying. Honest.

I watched and listened to the song (I enjoyed a lot of the guitar work and that was a fine harmonica rif, but I didn't understand most of the lyrics or the relationship to the post).

I can only understand your unusual reference to an absence of free will as some form of purposeful obtuseness intended to say something by being obtuse, something that I don't get.

I certainly wouldn't think you are implying that I am saying that votes are genetically determined in some fashion that is linked to genes that produce melanin... That would be too weird.

What are you saying? Because nothing in my post implies any absence of free will.

Post 7

Sunday, November 2 - 7:28pm

Link

Edit

Steve,

I'm inclined to agree with your position that race will largely be responsible for Obama's being elected. And I agree with your assessment of there bing a 'psychological pull' to at least symbolically end racism (because it still won't actually end it).

This won't stop me from still voting for McCain (or you throwing away your vote on the Libertarian).

jt

Post 8

Monday, November 3 - 7:59pm

Link

Edit

JT,

(or you throwing away your vote on the Libertarian).

While arguing with my socialist friend about the election, my socialist friend said that I'd be throwing away my vote if I didn't vote for Obama (because I would be the beneficiary of a redistribution of wealth).

I see his mindset in your words.

It was hard to explain to him how I think, about not wanting to vote for the guy who will give me a large tax benefit. If there's a straightforward and immediate benefit to something, he says you should do it.

If you were to argue with him you might say that even though something is straightforward and immediate -- it is not necessarily the right or even the good choice to make (because there's more that meets the eye -- there's a plethora of peripheral consequences).

And I'd use that same argument on you in order to defend "throwing" my vote to the Libertarian.

Ed

Post 9

Tuesday, November 4 - 6:25am

Link

Edit

Ed,

There is some intellectual ammo to argue with your socialist friend in George Reisman's article
here, especially Section II.

Post 10

Wednesday, November 5 - 9:33pm

Link

Edit

Ed, you wrote,

While arguing with my socialist friend about the election, my socialist friend said that I'd be throwing away my vote if I didn't vote for Obama (because I would be the beneficiary of a redistribution of wealth)....

It was hard to explain to him how I think, about not wanting to vote for the guy who will give me a large tax benefit. If there's a straightforward and immediate benefit to something, he says you should do it.

So, if a rich person could rip him off without getting caught, he would say that the rich person should do it, because of the straightforward and immediate benefit?? Frankly, I'd be astonished if he agreed with that. What does he say when you point out that taxes are no different than robbery?

- Bill

Post 11

Friday, November 7 - 9:04am

Link

Edit

Bill,

What does he say when you point out that taxes are no different than robbery?

I don't put it that harshly -- that "straightforward and immediate."
:-)

Dealing with socialists is tricky. Their psychological well-being is at stake. They have that youthful moral outrage (which the more-reasonable people outgrow as they mature and make spiritual progress). As a young socialist, I also had that outrage. However, this socialist buddy of mine is even older than I am. That means he's more spiritually wounded and vulnerable and will be highly defensive. You can't keep socialist views late in life without also failing to grow, morally and spiritually.

So he's going to be very guarded (about his emotional stake in political-economic matters).

Knowing that he's got to be so very guarded and intimidated, I put the matter this way:

What I like about capitalism is that I don't have to take anything away from anyone else in order to succeed. [notice that this is Pareto-Efficiency or Pareto-Optimality] Capitalism is unequal, but so is productivity. To treat unequals equally is a form of injustice. We don't treat criminals the same as innocent folks because that would be a gross injustice. So capitalism, for me, is about three things:

1) inequality
2) justice
3) progress

And I left it at that. He heard me out and didn't respond. My guess is that I've planted a seed. It may not be planted in fertile soil but I'm taking my chances with this guy (because of the other values he brings to my life).

Ed

Post 12

Friday, November 7 - 11:35am

Link

Edit

Yes, but Ed, you didn't address my other point. Remember, you wrote,

It was hard to explain to him how I think, about not wanting to vote for the guy who will give me a large tax benefit. If there's a straightforward and immediate benefit to something, he says you should do it.

I replied, "So, if a rich person could rip him off without getting caught, he would say that the rich person should do it, because of the straightforward and immediate benefit?? Frankly, I'd be astonished if he agreed with that."

Does he? And if he doesn't, then he's guilty of a blatant contradiction.

Also, Ed, I don't think you should pussyfoot around with this guy. Tell it like it is. What attracted me to Rand was her emphasis on the rights of the individual to freedom from other human beings. We don't tolerate robbery by private individuals. Why should we tolerate it by the government? What about the concept of equal rights? If my next-door neighbor has no right to rob me, then why does the government? If your socialist friend doesn't understand that once it's pointed out to him, then he has the mentality of a thug or a dictator and deserves no further consideration.

- Bill

Post 13

Friday, November 7 - 1:36pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for the feedback, Bill.

I'll try to incorporate them in my future dealings with this person.

Ed

McCain will win, because most whites won't vote for a black president!