York: Obama is “Actually” Not So Popular, Because Some People Who Like Him Are Black
Byron York has identified an important problem in our system of measuring public opinion, just the sort of thing that inspired the noble Framers of our constitution to wisely implement the three fifths compromise:
On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.
Dave Weigel observes that all Democratic politicians are always much more popular among blacks than among whites, so it’s not clear why York would spin this as a unique attribute of Obama’s. But more to the point, what is York talking about here? How does the fact that much of Obama’s support come from African-Americans mean that he’s not “actually” popular?
96 Responses to “York: Obama is “Actually” Not So Popular, Because Some People Who Like Him Are Black”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
He’s only 3/5 as popular as he appears. It’s in the Constitution, you know.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Duh. Because we don’t let them types vote.
What? Really? I’ll be darned. How long has that been goin’ on?
April 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I thought they most polls were conducted in Real America. You mean they aren’t? That explains a lot.
We ought to hold our elections there, too.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Yes, what on earth could he possibly be thinking, given that we’re in a “post-racial” society? I just can’t put my finger on it.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
He’s saying that blacks only support him so strongly because of him being the first black president and their brains aren’t big enough to form thoughts independent of that.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Wow, stunningly racist. Maybe not in intent, can’t know that, but in the effect of York’s words – flat out racism to think that actual popularity only accrues from the opinions of white people.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Because only the opinions of white people between the ages 45-70 count. You’re forgetting beltway logic, Matt.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
York doesn’t say that “Obama” is not as popular as he appears to be, he said that Obama’s “positions” are not as popular as they appear to me. You added a gloss to his words to make him look bad. According to York, Obama’s job approval is very high, in part because of overwhelming approval among African-Americans. That makes it seem that his “positions” are very popular, but they aren’t (according to York’s view) because his job approval among African-Americans is not (York implies) primarily due to his “positions” but his race. York might be wrong about that, and he might be an awful person for all I know, but he did not say what you said he said.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
He means that what white people think is what matters. They are the important demographic. I’m white but I know exactly what he is saying because men dismiss women’s opinions in this same way all the time.
He’s an asshat.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I think this provides a pretty clear window into what York and his like really think. Not openly racist, but peal it back a couple of layers and York thinks that black opinion is just not as important as white opinion.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Come on. York pointed out the same thing about Bush’s popularity at his 100-day mark. I remember it distinctly:
“the president [Bush] and some of his policies are significantly less popular with black Americans than with white Americans, and his sky-high ratings among whites make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.”
Of course whitey is going to like some whitey in the White House, so you have to discount Bush’s popularity early on.
York really made that point back then. No, really.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
So York isn’t being racist, he’s just saying that blacks are being racist because the only reason why they like Obama is the color of his skin. Which would explain the awesome popularity of Alan Keyes.
At least York’s idea doesn’t require a time machine.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Will,
Certainly one could attempt to make the case that Obama has a high approval among African-Americans despite their policy difference with him, but that is not what York is doing here – he repeatedly stresses the higher level of support blacks give Obama on virtually everything, which is contrary to the interpretation you suggested. And your interpretation is, I think, the only way that what York wrote could be construed as anything but racist.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
No Will he said “some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans.” Its not job approval ratings, its policies.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Nothing wrong with Byron’s observation. Don’t forget George Bush won in 2000 and 2004 with the overwhelming support of Neanderthal-Americans. If those elections had been restricted to Homo Sapiens (and Hobbits) the results would have been quite different.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
When George Bush was at the height of his popularity, he was not popular with black Americans, nor was his war. But you never saw this clown pointing out that W didn’t have the high level of support among blacks that he had among whites.
Because it’s white people’s opinions that matter. And of course, you put the white male on top of the white female, and after you’ve addressed race and then gender, you move on to class, with rich little bitch boys like York, on the very top of the hierarchy. Their opinions really, really, really matter. Their votes should really count at least five times.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Byron York is a product of Gov. Ronald Reagan emptying the loony bins.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Well this implies that he thinks that black Americans’ opinions do not count as much as white Americans’ opinions. Unless he’s not disputing the voracity of their opinions, but rather disputing their Americaness. Neither assumption reflects well on him.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
There is also a flaw in our system where those without property get to vote with the same weight as those with property, and when polling is conducted that includes those without property, it will also make it seem as if his positions are more popular than they actually are.
WRT York’s argument about Obama’s positions … its true of all popular political leaders that they make some positions seem more popular than the “would be without the support of that popular political leader”.
It is, on the other hand, a bit precious to argue that makes the positions more popular than they really> are … after all, out in the real world, they do have that support, which provides part of the context that determines how popular they really.
After all, in most instances (and outside California), we do not vote on policies by referendum, but voting for or against a politician, either because of, in spite or, or without regard to some particular set of policies the political espouses.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
LOL @ Jim’s invented quote. Pretty funny.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Yeah, well Robert Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan so nyaah!
April 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Shorter Byron York: blacks aren’t people.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Oh come on: everybody always votes solely based on policies and never, ever based on identity – yeah, right.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
From Wikipedia:
White privilege is a set of perceived advantages enjoyed by white people beyond those commonly experienced by non-white people in those same social, political, and economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc.). It differs from racism or prejudice in that a person benefiting from white privilege does not necessarily hold racist beliefs or prejudices himself and can be, as is often the case, unaware of his privilege.
What a piece of shit. Like, no, you dumb fuck. Those are the actual approval ratings of his policies.
When Byron York says:
What he means by actually are, is, when you don’t count black people. And this guy is considered a respected, non-fire breathing member of the conservative movement. This shit is what’s wrong with these guys. Black opinion doesn’t really count?!?
I’d love to debate this guy in a bar. And then, just for shits, physically intimidate him. Or have a “scary looking” black friend fuck with him. These people make me sick.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
York’s talking about “Real Americans.” Although, to be fair, I’d love to see breakouts by geographic region, and sitting behind that desire is an uncomfortable comfort with writing off the Deep South for the purposes of analysis.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I don’t understand what white people mean when they say black people are racist. When black people call someone white racist, it means that the white person believes whites are superior to blacks. White people seem to use it anytime black people like or have a fondness for one another (e.g. black people like Obama because they are racist).
April 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
It’s sadly not limited to opinion polls. I can’t find it just now, but the argument that European medical systems are worse than the United States’ provided you ignore certain segments of the U.S. population has recently cropped up. Or rather, has recently cropped up again, since I remember arguing this almost twenty years ago, back in the USENET days.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
And Tom Delay is really, really popular with Southern rednecks, so what does that tell you about his REAL standing with the rest of REAL America? God, these conservatives are awful. Just listened to Cliff May try to spin that the “torture memos” were really “anti-torture memos” because, I suppose, the authors must have really been against torture if they went to such excrutiating lengths to rhetorically define away behavior that any fairminded person would agree was torture. Got that?
April 29th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
That makes it seem that his “positions” are very popular, but they aren’t (according to York’s view) because his job approval among African-Americans is not (York implies) primarily due to his “positions” but his race.
This is still stupid. Obama did better than Kerry among blacks by about four points, same as among the electorate as a whole. For whatever reason you choose to impute to them, blacks overwhelmingly prefer the generic Democrat, and if it’s not due to their policies it must be due to something like that. If York isn’t racist, then I’m sure you’ll agree that he must be either stupid or a willfully ignorant partisan hack, right?
April 29th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Shorter York:
“Obama is a Negro. Negroes always support other Negroes. This explains, for instance, the tremendous popularity of Alan Keyes and Michael Steele in the black community.
On the other hand, white people are rational and ignore race, so you have to look to whites to gauge the ‘actual’ popularity of anything involving a Negro. This also applies to women — of any race.
Look, just examine what white men think, because everyone else is crypto-racist/sexist and biased.”
April 29th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
And when a gay person objects to being called a moral degenerate by some religious freak the gay person is guilty of “attacking people of faith.” Or, the gay person is being intolerant of dissenting points of view by not tolerating intolerance.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Is is scary that if it weren’t for the slave trade the US would be even more right-of-center than it is.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
So when 80% of the country thinks that Republicans are idiots, does that make Byron York’s opinion even less convincing than it already is?
April 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
It’s not just white and black people. You could also cut it any number of other ways and have Population X skewing Obama’s policies one way or another (White Protestants, Union members, southerners, urbanites, etc.).
April 29th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
anon at 3:33–I don’t think so, considering so much of the Republican support (at least in the south) has been a backlash against the Democrats as the “black” political party.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
God Byron York looks like such a tool.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Not necessarily. Small minorities don’t generate the same kind of backlash. Without the whipped up fear and hatred of blacks, it might have been harder to get so many people to vote against their own economic interests. You might even have a liberal south accusing conservatives of a “northern strategy” of whipping up antisemitism to garner votes.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Will – No, what Byron York really means is that when blacks say they support universal health care, what they really mean is that they support other black people. And when they say they support reverting to early-Bush-era tax rates, what they really mean is that they like other black people. When they say they support any of his policies, what they actually mean is that they like black people, because they only thing black people understand or care about is other black people. But if they really do mean they support his policies, even then, it’s best to discount their opinions from what the polls “actually” say.
I can’t imagine a non-racist interpretation of this.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Jim – Exactly. I don’t recall Byron York discounting Bush’s popularity with uneducated Southern religious fundamentalists and explaining that their fanatical love of the man made his policies appear more popular than “they actually are.”
I wonder what would make the National Review’s Byron York think of such an argument within 100 days of the election of the first black president? Hmm.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I agree. The question is, does York conciously believe that the opinions of blacks don’t really matter, or is he simply accustomed to dismissing their opinions out of habit, because everyone does it.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I think this is almost certainly a Freudian slip. York has probably been thinking for some time, “This black liberal wouldn’t be riding so high if it weren’t for all the black people,” and it was an easy (and inadvertently verbalized) leap to the normalization of whites as equating to what Americans “actually” think.
This slip really does advertise York’s conscious or subconscious idea of “actual” America as America’s white people.
My, we’re getting very po-mo around here today.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I wonder if he can understand why this is racist? I think he doesn’t see it.
Normally, racist punditry is done in deniable ways – through codewords, or “simply presenting the facts”. They can always wiggle out of it. There is no wiggle room here. According to York, African Americans are not part of Americans “overall”.
I bet his prejudice is so natural to him he can no more see it than he can taste his own saliva.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
A good sign that York’s utterances are indefensible is that 40+ comments in, the right-wing trolls have yet to make an appearance defending him. I can almost hear Al…
(Al furiously types, the stops abruptly)
Al: Damn! Even I can’t say that with a straight face.
(Highlights entire block of text, hits ‘delete’, starts again… )
April 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Yes, Byron York is a racist.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
What’s scary is that York is NRO’s house Sober Moderate Centrist. Yikes.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
He’s writing for the National Review, people. Their history on issues of race is not ambiguous.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
The trolls (and far worse) are all over at the Examiner posting their tripe under York’s article’s comment stream. It’s kinda scary over there.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
According to the census, about 12.1% of Americans are black, and according to recent polls, about 20% of Americans are Republican.
If you factor out Republicans, Obama’s popularity is overwhelming. Funny that Byron York suggests that in determining public opinion we should ignore 12% of the electorate that loves Obama without suggesting we should also ignore 20% of the electorate that hates him.
(And yes, it’s completely bizarre that there are currently 3/5 as many black people as there are Republicans in America. Frankly, I have no idea where to go with that observation.)
April 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Bosch’s Poodle wrote: …Bush’s popularity with uneducated Southern religious fundamentalists and explaining that their fanatical love of the man…
I would consider this just as prejudiced as York, except I’ve seen “Jesus Camp”. In particular, the scene where they’re holding up the cardboard cutout of Bush for, well, the only word that comes to mind is adulation.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
You hear republicans make this kind of argument every once in a while- that democrats’ popularity with blacks is masking their underlying weakness among real people. I normally don’t have much of a problem with York, other than his being more politically conservative than me. But there’s no denying he’s being racist here.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Catherine Says: When George Bush was at the height of his popularity, he was not popular with black Americans, nor was his war. But you never saw this clown pointing out that W didn’t have the high level of support among blacks that he had among whites
Actually, if the GOP had been smart, they would have paid more attention to Shrubby’s low approval ratings among African Americans. They turned out to be the trendsetters (2-3 years in advance) for future declines in appeal for Bush’s policies and the Iraq War
April 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
maybe he means o’s popularity among blacks doesn’t count b/c so many have been disenfranchised after serving time in jail. i.e., who cares if they like him if they can’t actually vote.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I prefer this version:
“His lower ratings among whites make some of his positions appear a bit less popular than they actually are.”
April 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
York does not have enough data to make a sensible point. Comparing whites to blacks, as the Times did, provides roughly as much insight as comparing Republicans to Democrats – who would be surprised to find Obama polls better among the latter?
“Whites” are some mix of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. “Blacks”, based on past voting patterns, are mostly Dems. If the Times had provided sub-tabs for white Democrats and their data showed that Obama polled even better among blacks than that group, maybe York would be getting somewhere.
Of course, to really get somewhere York would have to find some policy position where race really makes no difference. Superficially, one might think that our foreign policy ought to be color-blind, but I can certainly think of reasons it might not be (Israel and evangelicals allied with the Jewish community springs to mind).
Dumb article.
That said, York is no longer with the National Review and Weigel’s lead paragraph is corrected in an UPDATE.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Anybody know what the racial breakdown of Pres. Clinton’s numbers was?
April 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Byron Dork is only interested in the white opinion. They’re the only ones that count. Right? Nutcase! But I do repeat myself…
April 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Weigel’s lead paragraph is corrected in an UPDATE.
I wouldn’t say I corrected it. York’s argument is, if anything, even more dubious if he’s talking about Obama’s policies — he’s implying that blacks are mindlessly supporting those policies because he’s black.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
YOU MEAN THAT THEY LET BLACK PEOPLE HAVE OPINIONS? ISN’T THAT ILLEGAL?
April 29th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Byron York is an example of conservative thinking at its purest and finest.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
If you think York is bad, scoot on over there and read his commenters. They make him sound like Donna Brazile.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
You can poll this by saying something to the effect of: “Do you agree with the plan to raise taxes on people who make over a certain amount?”
And then asking another group the question: “Do you agree with Obama’s plan to raise taxes on people who make over a certain amount?”
Wouldn’t that tell you how much Obama’s popularity is influencing support for his policy? If someone says no to the first question and yes to the second then they are being influenced by the change from “the” to “Obama’s”.
Only problem I see with the statement is that is wasn’t well thought out or given any support with examples.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
When I read this post, two thoughts came to mind:
1. Byron York’s comment is unequivocally racist.
2. Bet you anything that if you confronted him on it, he would be shocked and dismayed, and would respond with outraged denial — because he was unconscious of the white supremacist, racist implications of his comment when he wrote it.
White Americans tend to think of racists as loudmouthed Southern crackers, Boss Hogg-like caricatures, waving Confederate flags and yelling “Ah hate them g-d- N-words.” It’s convenient to see white racism this way, because it excuses the rest of us; helps us avoid examining our own, often subliminal negative feelings about black people. If you’re white (as I am), check with a black friend, if you have one who trusts you enough to be frank about this kind of issue. I’ll bet he or she will tell you that it’s the unconscious racists, not the Confederate flag-wavers, that they have to deal with every day.
So condemn Byron York’s comment. It deserves it. But then go take a good long look in the mirror.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Fool that I am, I went to the original and I don’t see any wiggle room an “out of context” plea. and the comments seal the deal;
jack Apr 29, 2009
“Obama could bone his own children on the steps of Capitol Hill. The media would cheer the ‘closeness’ of the Obamas, and blacks would start defending incest. Those opposed to his behavior would be labeled racist and closed minded.
Could someone pass me the eye bleach?
April 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I agree that it’s hard to come up with a less poisonous interpretation. It is what it is.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I (@43) do not endorse the comment of my namesake @61. I know it was important to you all that I clear that up.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
York does not have enough data to make a sensible point.
Something that has never stopped Tommy “Free Scooter!” Maguire.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
The obvious point that no one seems to be saying is that Obama’s 96% job approval rating among blacks is only slightly above his 90% job approval rating among Democrats (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama-dems.php).
A more accurate reading of the polls is that Obama’s sky-high support among Democrats, plus 55% support among independents (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama-inds.php) outweigh the meager 25% support he gets from Republicans. But that doesn’t allow York to make his racist point, so he doesn’t mention it at all.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Re: There is also a flaw in our system where those without property get to vote with the same weight as those with property
This is not a flaw– it is a virtue that we have rejected that ancient evil known as “oligarchy”. There is not one iota of justification for letting the rich have more power than everyone else. They already have more money. That should suffice, should it not?
April 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
[...] blogosphere is understandably abuzz about this comment from Byron York: Obama’s sky-high ratings among African-Americans make [...]
April 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Okay, that makes it damn near unamious . . . unomious . . .unnimmoses . . . zheeiiitt . . . We’re all agreed, then? York’s a dork?
On any other issue, anywhere up to a third of the comments on this forum are by righties, even if some of them are only doing it for their morning dose “spit on Matt to feel superior.” But Byron’s managed to unite us, to bring on bi-partisan consensus. He must be so proud.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
JonF, get your sarcasm detector checked.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Judging by the picture this York guy has obviously reached the level of inbred twitness that proves whites have reached the end of the line. As if making Bush the king of all white people wasn’t evidence enough. I say all this as someone who is absolutely 100% white, Swedish and German. Well as white as an Alsace Germans might be. Which is whiter than Irish, Pat, but I digress.
It really is pretty sad that the leading intellectuals of whiteness are the likes of Kristol and Goldberg.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
It is interesting that Obama’s approval ratings are far higher than measures like people’s satisfaction with government or their hope for the future. You would think with Democrats in lock step with whatever Obama says people would be enjoying his policies more.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Nathan, if you think Democrats are in lock-step with whatever Obama says, you’re a fairly unobservant douche nozzle. Perhaps you’ve never heard of wiretapping state secrets claims. We have. Try again.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
We heard the same thing during the campaign — “real Americans,” “hard-working Americans,” “small-town Americans” etc.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
This reminds me of the election when people kept saying that Obama had no working class support and that working class people were all going to vote for Clinton .Many black people asked the obvious question . “Aren’t there working class blacks as well ?”
You often see the same thing with spending . People say that “American taxpayers “should not have to pay for services for black people. Don’t black people pay taxs as well ? And aren’t they American. Doesn’t the armed forces have a disproportanal amount of racial minorities.
I do not think MR York is a racist. But he seems to have a mindset that too many share. They feel that white people are Americans, and everyone else is here as a guest, including black people whose ancestors came over in the 1700’s.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
MR colin at comment 75
I just read your comment and realised that you made the same point as me ,but you did it first.I apoligise for being repititious.I should have read all of the comments first! I do agree with your comment totally, obviousely.
Speaking as a white guy thats a construction laborer.My concerns are no different ,than the black or hispanic guys i work alongside of.Enough talk of “REAL AMERICANS”.
REAL AMERICANS COME IN ALL SHAPES , SIZES AND COLORS
April 29th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Ahem.
ZING.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Today’s Republican Party.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
“People say that “American taxpayers “should not have to pay for services for black people. Don’t black people pay taxs as well ?”
Well, a current wingnut talking point is that Obama is cutting taxes for blacks, who don’t pay taxes, and thus getting welfare in for his black homies through the back door.
Don’t ever underestimate the racism in the “heartland.” As people have noted, look at the comments to York’s piece. The racist underbelly of “ordinary, hardworking, white Americans” is never far from the surface.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
give byron a break. After all, it’s only his cowardice and lack of character that make it appear as if he’s a moral degenerate. If it weren’t for those things, he’d a strong-minded person of integrity.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:11 am
It appears York did not factored in Asians. We are smarter and work harder than whitey so our opinions should be multiplied by 2.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:23 am
York does have rather elegant hair though. He looks like someone who works at the Tory Central Office, in England. Super-preppy.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:53 am
How about this: George Bush’s popularity of 24% was actually vastly overstated because it includes Southern whites. If we exclude Southern whites, we find his real popularity was actually at 10%.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:45 am
York does have rather elegant hair though. He looks like someone who works at the Tory Central Office, in England. Super-preppy.
LOL @ Tory Central Office.
Oh how I adore the good people of the internets.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
[...] yesterday we had Byron York saying that black people’s opinion shouldn’t count when tallying up how popular someone is and, on a sillier note, this bizarre CNN segment on [...]
April 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Wait! Just blacks? What about women? And Native Americans? Then there’s labor. Naturalized Americans, because they were born outside the U.S. And just for grins and giggles, let’s cut out all registered Democrats too. Makes about as much sense!
What a loser!
Oh, wait! That explains it! Never mind.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Because they don’t vote but they do answer polls… Figure it out.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
He really needs to look at the census and see the population numbers. Statistically you would need white supporters to affect the election and popularity polls. Once again when someone lacks the talent to provide any real insights they always REVERT to a “Man Bites Dog” type of sensationalism.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
York’s comments are not as offensive as they appear. If you just exclude all of the white, racist, dim-witted writers involved in writing it, then the whole thing is inoffensive, and in fact doesn’t actually exist!
You just have to think like they do, then it’s easy.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
The point he was making is that black people judge a man by the color of his skin, not the content of his character.
A non black with the exact same policies and job performance would be significantly less popular.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
[...] because black people like him. As a result, this makes his proposals “appear more popular than they actually are.” It’s like how Nancy Pfotenhauer thought that the Democratic parts of Virginia were [...]
May 1st, 2009 at 2:45 am
Byron York has posted a defense of his post in which he uses the example “It’s the old joke: Six people are in a bar. They’re all middle class; their average net worth is about $100,000. Bill Gates walks in. Seven people are in a bar; their average net worth is in the billions. A wealthy group, right? Internal numbers are revealing.”
This defense of the original post as non-racist is illogical. Bill Gate walks into a bar and, sure, he skews the economic stats of the bar’s patrons as a group. But this is a false analogy because if Bill Gates walks into America, no skewing occurs; he was in America to start with. In other words, if the bar is America, Bill Gates and all his wealth “belong there” and should be counted in the computation of average economic stats. Compared to the economically average American, Bill Gates seems discountably extreme; but his existence and economic status are a valid part of the calculation of that perfectly average American. If African-Americans are 13% of America, and are 100% for or against something, that is a real and substantial part of what Americans are for or against as opposed to any kind of invalid skewing of the overall favor vs. opposition stats.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:26 am
[...] to say anything in response to what Byron York writes here in response to those who criticized his bizarre contention that Obama’s “sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions [...]
May 1st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
[...] patrols the net looking for right-wingers who say dumb shit about black people. Moreover my fellow Left-Coast Avengers were already on the case. But then the quote stayed with me. And after thinking on it, I [...]
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 am
It makes me sorta queasy to read about this.
There’s an automatic discount that gets applied to african-american opinion. It’s wierd that he uses the states “his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are”.
Aren’t african-americans part of the “overall”?
I sometimes feel like I’m living in a parallel universe. Sometimes something like this comes along and I realize that America is really two countries, and there are people out there who really do think that something like high popularity amongst a group of any race “skews” the real results.