georgeob1 wrote:Moreover the exit polling data I have seen strongly suggests that skin color or "race" (whatever that really means) is no more a reliable predictor of voting patterns than age, political affiliation, economic status or any of the other variables that the statisticians so love.
I think you want to doublecheck that exit polling data... :wink:
Both in the last couple of general elections, and in the Democratic primaries now, for example, black voters have rallied behind one of the candidates in a stronger concentration than any other political, siocio-economic or demographic subset.
Look at the way black and white voters have voted in these primaries, for example. So far, in the Democratic primaries, Obama has received an average of 79% of the black vote -- and 37% of the white vote.* Thats a 42% gap.
In comparison, the gap in the Obama vote between college graduates and voters without a college degree was 12%, and the gap between those whose family income is less or more than $50,000 was 5%.
In 2004, meanwhile, 88% of African-Americans voted for Kerry, while just 41% of whites did. Thats a 47-point race gap.
To put that in perspective: even the gap between the poorest 8% of the voters (those earning less than $15,000) and the richest 3% (those earning $200,000 or more) was significantly smaller, with Kerry getting 28 percent more among the former than the latter.
When it comes to education, the biggest gap was between those with some college, of whom 46% votes Kerry, and postgraduates, of whom 55% voted Kerry. Thats just a 9-point gap. Same with age: Kerry got 54% of the youngest voters and 46% of the oldest ones - an 8-point gap. Pales into insignificance compared to the 47-point racial gap.
The overbearing role of race in politics is sad in many ways. But it's undeniable.
* Average of each state's polling data, not weighted for population size.
It was funny..
I do understand though, Lola. I probably would do the same,