More on "The black-white divide in Obama's popularity"

Reader Comments

Apr 30, 2009

Thank you Byron York for being the reasonable voice amongst the chaos! I agree with your comments entirely.

Apr 30, 2009

No, sorry, if you're going to look at "numbers behind the numbers" you have to cover both sides: if you make a gross generalization, saying that blacks only support Obama because he's black, you must also accept as a valid argument that whites only oppose Obama for the same reason. There are a lot of racist whites in America, afterall. So do these two biases cancel each other out? Who knows what the actual numbers are, but to marginalize a the opinions of one race, but not the other is pretty racist.

Apr 30, 2009

I think you would have been better off with different word choices (such as across-the-board). Even in your bar example, the "overall" net worth is still huge, if not "across-the-board." As it is currently written, it implies that blacks' opinions matter less. I understand that's not what you're trying to convey. You're saying that a group of voters disproportionately agree with everything Obama says, which is correct. One other thing to note is that there are probably a significant number of whites that disagree with everything he says simply because they are white and Obama is black. The problem is that it's harder to determine a "racist whites" category. So, in essence, if the data were available you could write the exact same article with white voters versus racist white voters.

Apr 30, 2009

Actually, it is the use of the term "actually" that I find offensive. To me it reads as of you think that only non-african american opinions actually count. If you had said that his overall ratings are higher than his ratings among whites (and here is why...), then I have no argument, but your implication that african american options don't "actually" count is very offensive to me.

Apr 30, 2009

Did it just occur to you now that national, across-the-board opinion poll numbers obscure differences among segments of the electorate? That's kind of unremarkable, isn't it? Gee, a Democratic president has a higher approval rating with a core Democratic constituency? Wow! Oh wait -- Clinton (who, you may be surprised to learn, was white) was also "wildly popular" among black voters.

Apr 30, 2009

Did it just occur to you now that national, across-the-board opinion poll numbers obscure differences among segments of the electorate? That's kind of unremarkable, isn't it? Gee, a Democratic president has a higher approval rating with a core Democratic constituency? Wow! Oh wait -- Clinton (who, you may be surprised to learn, was white) was also "wildly popular" among black voters.

Apr 30, 2009

The left is doctrinaire in their denial of racism amongst blacks. The results of the poll of white voters are self-evident. The division of opinion in the white population is indicative of the overall liberal/conservative divide in the country. The almost total support and approval voiced by the black community can lead to two conclusions: either over 90% of black Americans are liberal democrats (entirely possible, perhaps true) or they are racist in favor of a man who looks like them. Even assuming that 90+% of the black population is liberal democrat, you would have to assume that if the president were white, they wouldn't be so slavishly devoted to him and unquestioningly in support of his policies.

Apr 30, 2009

Ohh, much better, Byron! Nowww I understand! Thank you for being so special.

Apr 30, 2009

Mr. York, I would say that the reverse situation - where President Bush's popularity was wildly inflated by a small number of fundamentalist Christians who disproportionately approved of his policies and administration - was equally as interesting. I am sure if you would simply highlight your articles observing this phenomenon over the past several years prior to the Obama administration then I am sure much of this racist (really meant as curiously selective and unfair treatment) talk would evaporate. Thank you.

Apr 30, 2009

dwalthour has it spot on. Sure there are differences among groups. For example, the differences in attitudes among those from the southern states towards Obama are a lot more negative than the rest of the country. If I were to write an article pointing out this southern negativity, and insist that Obama's "actual" popularity was much higher, you can imagine the screams and howls of the indignant folks from the south. And you know what? They'd be right. The fact that you don't see this is how the racism is manifesting.

Apr 30, 2009

If that's your only argument to make you and your supporters feel good - go for it. Dig that hole deeper and deeper. It's too bad your party is on its way out like the dinosaurs...I kinda like the two party system. But your white only club has destroyed its own party.

Apr 30, 2009

ChuckD: Yes, Blacks vote at around 90% Democratic. It would be just as valid to state that they support Obama because he is a Democrat as to say they support him because he's Black. Why do Blacks vote so overwhelmingly Democrat? Let's just say that it wasn't just Southern Whites who were influenced by the Southern Strategy. The chickens did indeed come home to roost.

Apr 30, 2009

Your "Bill Gates walks into a bar" analogy is a dishonest smokescreen. The average net worth goes up but the standard deviation (margin of error) is also becomes enormous showing that the average is meaningless. The margin of error in this poll was only +/-3%. Your analysis and attempted justification for it can only be made by someone who thinks that African-American opinions are less than equal to white Americans' opinions. And that is shameful.

Apr 30, 2009

The problem isn't with "overall" it's with the part of the sentence that follows. The only way "than they actually are" makes sense is if you discount black opinion. Otherwise, overall, Obama's positions are precisely that popular.

Apr 30, 2009

Mr. York obviously is not qualified to talk about politics if he cannot understand simple opinion polls.

Apr 30, 2009

So are you, or aren't you, saying that the sample composition in that poll over-represents a specific subgroup? If not, than the all-up number is valid.

Apr 30, 2009

You might just want to take these articles down. one group over the other? I thought all these people were Americans? That's why he's "hugely popular" with Americans because we all are Americans. Why is that hard to understand? Well he's only really popular with blacks and not whites so he's not really hugely popular? Did we start counting black people as 3/5ths again?

Apr 30, 2009

You are still way out of touch!!! Everyone I know in the Middle class does not make $100,000 net average. I wish. My God what country are you conservatives living in? Step out of your elitist bubble for crying out loud. Racist and out of touch is no way to go through life.

Apr 30, 2009

The majority of Blacks are Dems. I believe that the number of dems who support his policies will be about the same as the number of Blacks. I believe people are calling you racist because Your piece breaks an opinion down by race, that would get similar numbers if it were broken down by party affiliation.

Apr 30, 2009

The majority of Blacks are Dems. I believe that the number of dems who support his policies will be about the same as the number of Blacks. I believe people are calling you racist because Your piece breaks an opinion down by race, that would get similar numbers if it were broken down by party affiliation.

Apr 30, 2009

When doing future polling, perhaps the solution would be to count members of a minority group as 3/5ths of a person. That seems like it would please the author.

Apr 30, 2009

No Byron. I think part of what has people confused is your choice for topics. With so much in upheaval, I would expect for smart people like yourself would offer his two cents towards solutions. For anything... But instead, your goal seems to be to paint Obama as less than what he is. Why? What is the point of it? You don't make much sense. Any ideas on how to turn our national situation around? I don't see it in your original article, nor in this response from you trying to CYA. We need to break this pattern of talking in circles, fighting this "civil-war" that's been going on in our political arena in the last 12 years. I sometimes wonder if I am not living in two countries by the way you all write! Please stop wasting time and try offering some solutions to our many national problems Mr. York. Thank you...

Apr 30, 2009

Your reformulation is more acceptable than your original post. It is legitimate to question the high approval ratings among blacks (although it is more a question of why democrats, in general, are popular among that group). I think that is a legitimate issue. Guess what? Your critics also think this is a legitimate issue. To say that 13% of the electorate skews the numbers, however, is not legitimate. Did you misspeak? If so, then apologize and get on with it.

Apr 30, 2009

Any solutions to our many national problems, or is the point of the two articles just to show the obvious? Blacks normally vote democratic...especially in the face of a scary campaign by Palin and Plumber you would expect this. When are we going to stop talking in circles and start talking about solutions?

Apr 30, 2009

Let's turn this around. There was a group of about 30% of the electorate who supported George W. Bush's policies no matter what. If we discount these people who obviously biased the polls, then Bush's approval rating in his last year of office was around 0% Yay for statistical analysis!

Apr 30, 2009

Why did they even ask the question in a black or white context?...Who cares what color the respondents were...

Apr 30, 2009

Let's turn this around. There was a group of about 30% of the electorate who supported George W. Bush's policies no matter what. If we discount these people who obviously biased the polls, then Bush's approval rating in his last year of office was around 0% Yay for statistical analysis!

Apr 30, 2009

What a lame attempt to explain away obvious racism. This is what Republicans have come to, a party that can only promote their opinions if they discount Americans they don't like.

Apr 30, 2009

Do the numbers lie somehow? Are the blacks to be counted less? For chrissakes, Mr. York, the quote of yours is ridiculous ---- the fact that internals to polls are interesting notwithstanding. Is there an established percentage we should count the African Americans in the poll at to properly ferret out the "right" number? Please advise.

Apr 30, 2009

I don't believe there's anything racist about what was said here. York doesn't try to make explanations for why the numbers skew this way, he only points them out as interesting. Where I do fault him is for not comparing race to other breakdowns between the groups. As others have mentioned, it would provide good context to see how party affiliation or economic strata matched up with these questions as well. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can fault him specifically, since he wasn't the originator of this study.. that honor goes to the New York Times.

Apr 30, 2009

This post makes you look even more stupid than the first. Can you really not see that the response to a binary poll is different than a multiple-value average? I would say the dichotomy would be interesting, if the president were popular among one demographic, unpopular among another. It seems he's popular among both, just much more so among one.

Apr 30, 2009

To James: Imagine for a moment, if you will, that you as a white person (and I'm assuming you are) were in a distinct minority within a dominant black country and someone said of such a poll taken that "The white president's sky-high ratings among white Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are." I suspect you'd recoil at the language. Language is important. York, racist or not, mis-spoke here and to defend such language is patently ridiculous.

Apr 30, 2009

This is a pathetic response. The whole fuss is about the idea that once you take out the black people you can see the "actual" (your word not mine Byron) approval rates. This long response spends plenty of time on irrelevant parts of the complaint against you.

Apr 30, 2009

"On the left"... as if people on the right or without party association can't take issue with one of your articles.

Apr 30, 2009

"On the left"... as if people on the right or without party association can't take issue with one of your articles.

Apr 30, 2009

Your reformulation is more acceptable than your original post. It is legitimate to question the high approval ratings among blacks (although it is more a question of why democrats, in general, are popular among that group). I think that is a legitimate issue. Guess what? Your critics also think this is a legitimate issue. To say that 13% of the electorate skews the numbers, however, is not legitimate. Did you misspeak? If so, then apologize and get on with it.

Apr 30, 2009

Black people count "across the board" by the way. At one time, they didn't, because of the greatest flaw in our history --but they count "across the board" now...except for Byron York.

Apr 30, 2009

The ad hominem against Andrew Sullivan certainly doesn't make you look pathetic and defensive...

Apr 30, 2009

The ad hominem against Andrew Sullivan certainly doesn't make you look pathetic and defensive...

Apr 30, 2009

Byron, you really should look at regional differences and avoid the racial breaks. The South is where Obama is intensely disliked. Take out the South and the differences among Americans are much less pronounced.

Apr 30, 2009

Byron, you really should look at regional differences and avoid the racial breaks. The South is where Obama is intensely disliked. Take out the South and the differences among Americans are much less pronounced.

Apr 30, 2009

Byron, you really should look at regional differences and avoid the racial breaks. The South is where Obama is intensely disliked. Take out the South and the differences among Americans are much less pronounced.

Apr 30, 2009

It seems that Mr. York is searching for ways to denigrate Obama's popularity. Maybe he thinks that if he can explain it away by saying it's due mostly to blacks then that means that Obama's really not that popular and maybe in 2012 Palin or Jindal or Gingrich (or please, somebody!) can beat Obama because the "real" Americans will not vote for a black man. No, wait....they already did.

Apr 30, 2009

Sour grapes, Byron. I guess you had to cherry pick the NYT poll numbers in order to write a Chicken Little piece like this. As written, the article indicated that the opinions of Black Americans are less real or less authentic than real Americans, or are at least worth less than those of white Americans. But here's the next question: Where are the Hispanic, Asian, etc. numbers? How well does Obama poll with other minorities? I think the answer is, pretty well, and that's why you don't mention anything about it. Pretty intellectually dishonest. You're still exploiting the black-white divide.

Apr 30, 2009

Obama is the most polarizing President ever: Dem vs. GOP, black vs white. Our enemies have their best gift in the White House.

Apr 30, 2009

I think the point is that African Americans are also Americans. So their opinions are as valid as whites. Popularity is popularity regardless of the race.

Apr 30, 2009

The suggestion that the numbers are skewed would have to come from polling more black people than would be representative in the general population. That isn't the case.

Apr 30, 2009

Since when has Andrew Sullivan been on the left? He's a conservative who's become disenfranchised with the increasingly lunatic path the Republican party has chosen. I really hate it when conservatives dismiss all criticism as being invalid because it comes from the left, or even worse, the "liberal" media. Pathetic excuse.

Apr 30, 2009

Byron, you could easily have just said that his support among white Americans is not as high as among black Americans. Instead, you made a thinly-veiled comment that black Americans' opinion really isn't that important, it's the whites' opinion that matters. Your post above tries to skirt that issue, and does so poorly.

Apr 30, 2009

I am sorry, that as a black woman I actually care about my country. I don't care that Barrack is black. If he were a republican I would not have voted for him. When Bush was in office his policies were more popular among whites than blacks and more so with the " Christians". So if you're black and liberal you're just a welfare idiot. Nice of you guys to think that because I am black I am incapable of thinking for myself. This article is insulting and York's response was pathetic. Yeah! To the party of the future.

Apr 30, 2009

Your Bill Gates example is flawed because of the sheer magnitude by which Gates's wealth would offset that of the other six - that is, an average net worth of $100,000 jumps into the billions. This means that Gates increases the average by 10,000%. For this to relate to the argument at hand, it would have to mean that among whites, Obama's approval rating is .0068%, and when factoring in blacks, it jumps to 68%. In reality, factoring in blacks increases Obama's approval rating by 1.097%. To feed this back into your flawed example: six people are in a bar. Their average net worth is 911.577 million dollars. A seventh guy walks in whose net worth is 1.53 billion, pushing the average in the room to an even billion. A wealthy group, right? Yes, I believe so.

Apr 30, 2009

"I really hate it when conservatives dismiss all criticism as being invalid because it comes from the left, or even worse, the 'liberal' media. Pathetic excuse." To be fair, everyone is on your left when you're as far right as you can get.

Apr 30, 2009

this "rebuttal" still smacks of a 3/5 attitude toward the black folk.. you're just digging a deeper hole.

Apr 30, 2009

Your Bill Gates example is flawed because of the sheer magnitude by which Gates's wealth would offset that of the other six - that is, an average net worth of $100,000 jumps into the billions. This means that Gates increases the average by 10,000%. For this to relate to the argument at hand, it would have to mean that among whites, Obama's approval rating is .0068%, and when factoring in blacks, it jumps to 68%. In reality, factoring in blacks increases Obama's approval rating by 1.097%. To feed this back into your flawed example: six people are in a bar. Their average net worth is 911.577 million dollars. A seventh guy walks in whose net worth is 1.53 billion, pushing the average in the room to an even billion. A wealthy group, right? Yes, I believe so.

Apr 30, 2009

It's natural to act defensive when attacked. Step back, ask your friends for advice, then come back and edit the racist statement and apologize.

Apr 30, 2009

Geesh..... The most racist people I know are black. Strange, but true. They HATE white people, but if the shoe's on the other foot, it makes you a bigot. What happened to the good 'ol days when we KNEW we were different and just excepted the differences?

Apr 30, 2009

It's a shame all these mature, enlightened comments will only have the effect of ping-pong balls ricocheting off Mr. York's skull. Watch. He won't get it. He'll just dig his heels in further. It's part of the nature of conservatism.

Apr 30, 2009

I think you should resign.

Apr 30, 2009

Nice work as always Byron. The typical riff raff that comes out whenever someone questions Obama are the mindless people who don't understand logic or facts. If Obama were caught in a lie (which has happened) and you called him out, they'll call you a racist.

Apr 30, 2009

Mr. York, The fact that you had to post a rebuttal shows that the accusations of racism must have hit a nerve. You yourself say that being called a racist is par for the course for a seasoned writer - so why respond this time? Perhaps because they have a point. As others have pointed out, the offensive part of your piece is in the introductory paragraph, which as most writers know serves to lay out the thought process behind the analysis of the rest of the text. The use of the word "actually" is highly indicative of that thought process. You seem to be stating that the "actual" poll numbers are not what are being reported and the real numbers are what you will be showing us in the rest of the text. In other words, to get at the "actual" numbers, one must discount the black portion of those numbers. That, Mr. York, is at the heart of the complaints.

Apr 30, 2009

Byron, it's time for you to just stop talking. Look, smart guy: One person, one vote, one opinion. There is no "story" within the ethnic breakdown. You really needed column space to point out that Obama isn't popular with racist white folk? Shocking. Bush wasn't popular with black people, yet I didn't see anything about that from you. Since you're incompetent at statistical analysis, perhaps you and your kind would be more adequately represented with only 3/5ths of a vote for about the next 20 years. It will take you at least that long to make the Republican party relevant again.

Apr 30, 2009

Actual popularity only accrues from the opinions of white people? York is a fraud.

Apr 30, 2009

JB can't read any better than the Nobamanation economists (deficit vs debt, etc.). Middle classers in the bar had $100k net worth, not $100k net income. Clue in. Better yet, tune out...

Apr 30, 2009

Blacks voted for Obama at 115%. Thank you, ACORN. No questions may be "axed" aboout this as any and all questions will be considered racist. Glad to help.

Apr 30, 2009

Lame. Very lame. You, I mean, not the people who rightly called you out for racism.

Apr 30, 2009

How many Obama voters think the ecomony is at least "fairly good"? How many of them believe the country is on the right track, or approve of President Obama's handling of the economy? How many Democrats believe the same? And so on. You could have chosen any number of internal factors and written an article about that. You chose blackness and whiteness, rather than a more race-neutral measurement such as party or candidate affiliation. You ignored an understandable (and frankly, simple) political analysis based on party in favor of a provocative one based on race. The upside was slight: Maybe blacks really do think more highly of Obama than whites. The downside was immense: Black support doesn't matter, because it's out-of-touch with the feelings of everyone else. To re-apply your own words, "The numbers inside the Times poll are newsworthy, if" columnists like yourself "would take the time to read and analyze them" properly.

Apr 30, 2009

Lame. Very lame. You, I mean, not the people who rightly called you out for racism.

Apr 30, 2009

Obama (and democrats in general) also scores better than hispanics than among whites. And better among white democrats than among whites overall. And among whites with post-graduate degrees. And among women. And among voters under 30. Why not parse them out as well?

Apr 30, 2009

You just keep digging, don't you? The problem, since you still don't seem to get it, is that when you complain that Obama "was often portrayed as being hugely popular with the whole group", that's because he IS popular with the "whole group". The only way you can claim that he's not hugely popular with "the whole group" is if you separate out people by race and not count the ones who are black. The problem is that you're claiming that this gives some sort of false reading, to include all races in the polling results. Besides, saying that his rating among whites is somehow not "hugely popular" is as dishonest as everything else you write, considering that the last President hovered below 30 percent for years.

Apr 30, 2009

Dr Grumpus: Perfectly said. I knew there was an analogy that could show how offensive and ridiculous this comment was. If you excluded white Southerners from results and said "See, Obama is "actually" more popular than the polls are claimed to show, because his negatives are higher with these Southern whites, so excluding the white Southerners, the "actual" results are... Spot on.

Apr 30, 2009

As has been pointed out, large percentages African-Americans have voted for and approved of Democrats for decades. Obama's approval ratings among blacks are similar to those of Bill Clinton, for example. Why do blacks prefer Democrats in such high numbers? Perhaps it's because the Democratic party conceives of "actual" public opinion in a way that includes the opinions of blacks.

Apr 30, 2009

When an African-American prefers a black candidate over all others, the media refers to it as "pride." When women prefer a female candidate over all others, the media refer to it as "admiration." When a caucasian perfers a caucasian candidate the media refer to it as "racism."

Apr 30, 2009

This was an article offering some interesting facts -- like most articles. Why do so many folks find the need to make it into something that it is not? Read the article, take from it what you will. But there was no discrimination. And know that in a country where the President is largely black, the highest paid movie star is black, most of the highest paid athletes are black, most of the bosses on tv cop shows are black -- it appears that these days everyone can find some reason to think their own race is discriminated against. But, actually, simply stated, today everyone has a shot at success if they have the talent, ability and are willing to work hard. Black, white, red, yellow, orange or purple -- it doesn't matter. So read the article if it interests you -- for the facts, not in a search for possible discrimination that is not there.

Apr 30, 2009

Wow, Byron! Your defense is that you wanted to investigate whether the president is wildly popular with particular groups--assuming that disproportionate ratings should make us reevaluate the overall trend (or across-the-board trend...whichever). So I have some other hypotheses for you to consider: 1. Obama's sky-high ratings among left-handed people make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are. 2. Obama's sky-high ratings among fondue aficionados make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are. Hmm. Even if it turns out that either of those statistics is right, I don't think you would write an editorial about the topic. That's because everyone knows that lefties, and fondue fans are ACTUAL PEOPLE, and their opinions need to be added up with everybody else's. The same is true of other demographics-- like race. Why are you encouraging white readers to think of African Americans as fundamentally different?

Apr 30, 2009

Your Bill Gates example is disingenuous, as the whole point of a president's popularity is that it is over a vast number of people. Try this: if Bill Gates flies into the US, a country of 300 million, with an average net worth of $40k, his additional 50 billion dollars raises that net worth by $166 per person. My point is that individuals don't count - it is the aggregate that matters. Certainly there are going to be discrepancies when you start pulling out individual interest groups, demographics, races (Obama is extremely unpopular with the GOP, by the way!), but what matters is the aggregate. To start calling out the fact that whites don't support him as much as blacks is fine, but in the end obvious and unimportant. Your attempt to justify the position you have taken in playing with the numbers is a joke.

Apr 30, 2009

Conversely, you could have said: "His middling ratings with white Americans make him appear less popular than he actually is", but this would be as racist and presumptuous as your original quote.

Apr 30, 2009

There was nothing racist about your post. I'm fairly liberal, and found the original NY Times poll, and your analysis informative. If there's a significant group of people will will judge Obama SOLELY on his skin color, as appears to be, then it should be analyzed.

Apr 30, 2009

But it does not "appear to be", Reuven. What a preposterous notion. Why can't it be that white people are judging Obama solely on the color of his skin (in other words, more harshly)? Why can't it be that blacks support Obama because of what they perceive as Obama's role in THEIR COMMUNITY, whereas whites don't perceive the same role in their community? You realize there is no OBJECTIVE number at which a President's approval should be, right?

Apr 30, 2009

Hey.. and Bush was only popular among hard-core conservatives. His "actual" approval numbers in the wider population were very low. Hence, his 20% approval rating was artificially high!

Apr 30, 2009

Pres. Bush was not popular among hard core conservatives.

Apr 30, 2009

Of course your are being racist or you would not have written about the subject or presented the facts. Africans as a whole are unable to view life, education, morality, etc., except through a black prism and prefer their victimhood to enlightenment. If you don't wish to be labeled a racist avoid discussing the obvious.

Apr 30, 2009

Was responding to this column a class project. Well, you all get A for being offended. Cheerio. What class are you taking next semester?

Apr 30, 2009

@Greg: Are you reading any of the actual criticisms here? I agree that it's reasonable to analyze the fact that African-Americans give Obama higher approval ratings. It's another matter altogether to imply that this fact discounts Obama's overall approval rating somehow. An opinion in a poll is an opinion. I think York's editorial is racist, and I think you are less than reasonable-- to put things more politely than necessary. By the way: I'm white, but maybe I have a black prism somehow.

Apr 30, 2009

I find it really bewildering the amount of white progessives going around accusing other whites of racism. Bewildering especially because america is just as racially segregated now as it was 50 years ago. To bad they didn't have a common sense 101 at liberal arts universities because most of you people are in dire need of some.

Apr 30, 2009

Byron, get a grip- Your world has crumbled- we are all "brown"- Repubs and conservatives will either adjust or fade away- I honestly pity you and your crowd- Ir has to be very lonely-

Apr 30, 2009

I don't know if you're a racist, Byron, because it's impossible for me to know your motives. Your logic, however, that Obama's "sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are" is idiotic. Whatever Obama's numbers are among a certain segment of the population, they still constitute part of the "overall" population, correct? So Obama's 69% approval rating is reflective of the country as a whole--and it's not exactly a shocking development that he's more popular among blacks than he is among whites, just as George W. Bush was more popular among whites than he was among blacks. Would you argue, then, that Bush's rock-bottom ratings among African-Americans made his positions appear less popular overall than they actually were? How in the world would you attempt to defend such a ludicrous position?

Apr 30, 2009

Obama is popular among blacks because progressive policies are popular among blacks. Blacks have always voted heavily Dem, yes, even approaching 90%. Mystery solved. These statistics are not newsworthy. Your outrageous reading of them is.

Apr 30, 2009

1. Ad hominem attacks on people who question you aren't explaining your point. 2. I don't think there's a way to fix that sentence. The point IS the problem. "Overall popularity" simply cannot be discounted, regardless of the demographics of the group . . . unless you believe the demographic quirk is somehow unlikely to persist. Let me try to illustrate: "The Washington Redskins' sky-high number of touchdowns (as opposed to field goals) make some of their scores appear a bit higher overall than they actually are." It's nonsensical. Points are points, whether on the football field or in an opinion poll. Unless you think Black voters are going to flee Obama, I think you need to take an honest look at the other assumptions that could underlie the statement.

Apr 30, 2009

Still racist.

Apr 30, 2009

Obama's low ratings among Republicans make some of his positions appear a bit less popular overall than they actually are.

Apr 30, 2009

mr.york, ive made comments all over, and no one listens? ob is a muslim, he grew up as one, and once you are a muslim you are for life. i really dont know how he was excepted in for the elections, the fbi has not looked enough at his background? americans have been tricked by this muslim,arrogant,sleazy,self-glorifying person. if one was not racist, they are now.blacks stick with blacks,and more so now that they have a black for pres. some one has got to stop this before its to late? the key to it all was when he bowed to a king, it showed his true self. wake up world,wake up america, the lion is asleep.

Apr 30, 2009

I read the column and the "rebuttal" and I still don't understand why it is for your original purposes (and in the opening paragraph of your column) the opinion of African Americans wouldn't actually count toward a sum of overall popularity. As others have posted, poll numbers can be broken down in a variety of ways and I wonder if the fact of Obama's similar popularity among college graduates also makes his overall popularity obsolete? Sorry, I still don't get it. I don't want to jump to conclusions but, gosh, I'm wondering if this warrants another column so you can clarify your intent more effectively?

Apr 30, 2009

Oh, just another note now that I read the post above mine--I present to you Mr. York that perhaps if columns like the one in question put you in the confidences of folks like "sfcbarth," and you *don't* want to be thought of as racist, perhaps you need to take a radically different approach?

Apr 30, 2009

karl marx was white wasn't he? so, i don't think it's racial on my end!

Apr 30, 2009

I'm kind of appalled that you would use this logic. No matter how you try to spin it, you are saying that Black support is insignificant.. I don't know the statistics, but I'm pretty sure that you look you might be able to find some president in the past say 30 years or so who was immensely popular with "Regular Americans" but not very popular with African Americans.

Apr 30, 2009

Oh, and congratulations on having people like sfcbarth on your side.

Apr 30, 2009

Oh, and congratulations on Antione who assumes that all of the individuals criticizing you are "white progressives". Brilliant!

Apr 30, 2009

Why would anyone consider you racist for your view that real public opinion should not include black people? I'm glad you are here to let us know which people are real people.

Apr 30, 2009

And Greg too! You must be proud.

Apr 30, 2009

It is clear from reading the comments above that racism is does exist. However, whites are not permitted to have an opinion. Only Blacks can speak to and interpret what is and is not racism, that's what get from the reaction to this article.

Apr 30, 2009

From the comments here in response to the article, it is clear that racism is never going away. It is too convient a weapon to bash away with instead of listening or reading. Also clear is that only Blacks can speak to, interpret and define what is racism. That street goes both ways.

Apr 30, 2009

I wonder how blacks responded to similar questions in the first 100 days of the Bush administration. Somehow I think the figures will reveal a surprising contrast and the honesty of their responses.

Apr 30, 2009

I'd say the NYT skewed the numbers to inflate Obamas popularity. The blacks polled in the current times poll represent around 22% of all those polled. In 2007 blacks represented 13.5% of the US Pop. For an accurate "overall" view, they should have polled about 13-14% blacks (similar to some of their earlier polls). Nothing more than the NYT trying to inflate Obamas numbers. Rasmussen has him at 54%. He's been steady 54-56% for weeks. York is spot on. Anyone who has a different idea probably doesn't want to be bothered with facts.

Apr 30, 2009

Thanks Byron for looking inside the polls. Of course it isn't racist to point out how different groups responded to questions. Any good poll makes clear in the internals how different groups respond. Would it be legitimate to comment on how different income groups respond? Or by education? Of course without looking inside a poll any polling outfit can manipulate the numbers by oversampling a group that leans heavily one way or the other. Keep up the good work. Let's face it, some folks seem to spend their days looking for an opportunity to be offended. Oh, well.

Apr 30, 2009

Barack HUUSEIN Obama wants a civil(race) war so that he can declare martial law, suspend the constitution and anniont himself ruler for life. Through the strength of Patriotic Americans this will not happen.

Apr 30, 2009

Well lets go back and look at first time voters for this election, see a trend? I do, majority are black who found no reason to vote in previous elections but this one. I find that interesting as thy make color an issue so why isn't it fair game? And where does it say that those black voters were all dems? I never read that, you are just assuming they are and your all fools for doing so.

Apr 30, 2009

One need not assume that blacks support Obama because he is black. One need only read the comments from conservatives here to understand why blacks support Democrats in general. It is telling that not one conservative here has taken issue with the author's contention that "actual" popularity does not include the opinions of black people.

Apr 30, 2009

There's that race card again. It's being used so much, no one listens anymore. I find it ironic that Obama is as much white as he is black.....yet apparently he (and a lot of libs) forget that. Oh there's racism all right, in the WH. And to think Lincoln, a REPUBLICAN was assasinated for his fight to free the slaves.

Apr 30, 2009

I am guessing that most of these liberal posts are from the same person, or news organization (CNBC), Hinthint. COme on guys. Lets not spin this on the author. It really is what it is, and we all know that blacks voted and support Obama because he is 50% of their blood and that is the closest they have ever gotten and more than likely will get for a long time. This may seem harsh, but it is just the truth. I have a black father and Rican mom. I just know it is what it is. Just glad my Rican came thru and allowed me to see this socialist, marxist, liberal administration as it is. Well, I am glad Obama won, Because if a Republican was in,,, the party would be destroyed. Now the dems will take the fall because trust me, it will be years b4 this turns around and it is now on osamas watch.

Apr 30, 2009

Memo to Byron York: I'll start taking you seriously as a pundit when you write the following sentence- "But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, John McCain and Sarah Palin and some of their policies are significantly less popular with black Americans than with white Americans, and their ratings among white Americans make some of their positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are."

May 1, 2009

Byron York wrote: "(Obama's) sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are." Please explain. Support for Obama's position is running at 69%. In what way does strong A/A support for Obama make his positions appear more popular overall than it actually is?

May 1, 2009

I was going to point out how insane your reasoning is but I feel now that would be piling on.

May 1, 2009

Mr. York, Even here in Idaho, the reddest state, you sound crazy. The wealthy, whitest counties here went for Obama, and the Christian Right went for McCain. Today, the conservatives here just buy guns and ammo to take care of what God can't handle. Why don't you do an article on that? Bigotry is growing and intolerance is increasing and you are one of the enablers with your equations of money and color; you are part of the problem. Why don't you use your space to explain facts to your readers and forego unfounded thoughts.

May 1, 2009

redbudacres has it right. Anytime one says something that can be taken as racist, it is. Racism is a growth industry.

May 1, 2009

Lets be realistic here. I personally talked to black people who NEVER voted in their lifes but voted this time to get Obama elected, because he is black or lets say "biracial". "He is a brother, we need a brother in the White House" I was told. Yet whenever Obama is giving a speech on national TV these same people are not watching Obama but shooting the breeze instead, don't listen to the news. When asked "why they voted for Obama" I get to hear "because he is black". Lots of these people, black and white don't have a clue about politics, do not know what the stimulus bill is all about, don't even know the difference between Liberal and Conservative. Are all of them like that who voted for Obama? Of course not, but there were a hell of a lot of people who voted for the first time to get Obama in the White House and that gave Obama the 4% over Mc Cain. 52-48, NOT a landslide as so many say.

May 1, 2009

Thank you Byron for not listening to the PC crowd and having the guts to speak your mind. Frankly, blacks are a minority, red necks are a minority and unprincipaled independents (PC) are ruining this country.

May 1, 2009

To BG and his or her ilk, look at the statistics before you make foolish statements. Starting in 1964 when the black vote for the Democratic presidential candidate was 94%, the black vote for Democratic presidential candidates ranged from 82% to 90% over the next 30 years, hitting a high of 95% for Obama. Can you recognize a pattern here? Black voters recognize where their interests currently lie - with the Democratic presidential candidate. Of whatever color.

May 1, 2009

Let Obama start acting and sounding like Michael Steele, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas or Jesse Lee Peterson and you'll all see how quickly he looses the support of black people. This is about politics and not race. Simple as that. And didn't black people give Jesse Jackson over 90% of their votes when he ran for president? Oh wait... blacks didn't. One of you arm-chair experts on black people care to explain that one?

May 1, 2009

The 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 patronage 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 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. If you're talking about averages vs. means then say so. Otherwise STFU, racist.

May 1, 2009

Looking inside the numbers do tell the story!

May 1, 2009

I worked for various polling organizations in my past as a publisher and a consultant. They are not what they are reported to be. They are an abject MESS. The audiences are preset to a high degree and only represent about 1200 folks. A pollster can "SKEW" any audience he wants to get what he wants if he is good. Consider the source. I have often heard the owners of a poll just change the results to fit their own needs. It is all informal fallacy and they are almost worthless especially in the hands of a democrat. They use them to manipulate for social engineering. Racists are usually anyone who has a bone to pick with a former friend. The term is used as emotional blackmail or guilt tripping. Whomever says the word as a leverage is the true racist.

May 1, 2009

The blacks in this country have long under reported their own population numbers in the census. The last number I heard was 31 percent. Yet the verified numbers in this report tend to show that as a lie. I'm betting that the blacks have finally achieved numerical superiority and will soon drop the pretense of under reporting their numbers so they can get federal dollars to support their takeover efforts.

May 1, 2009

Shorter Byron York - If you discount everyone except rich, white, southern, old white guys with KKK memberships, my key demographic, Barack Obama would be a lot less popular.

May 1, 2009

Most blacks are extemely liberal and so is Obama. Of course he is popular with liberal blacks and he is popular with extremely liberal whites. His poll numbers are high for that reason, because his policies as most things liberal are a disaster.

May 1, 2009

Byron, I don't think you are nessasarily a racist, but I definitly consider you a large flaming pile of smelly excrement.

May 1, 2009

Liberals love to bring racism into every discussion concerning blacks as a smokescreen for their lack of an intelligent answer. There are just as many or more black racists as white.

May 1, 2009

Well, here's one vote that Mr. York, on top of being a racist, is an idiot. Andrew Sullivan is a "left-wing activist"? Pathetic.

May 1, 2009

w's are busy calling each other racist's, tearing each other down. B's are busy banding together and taking over this country. b's are not racists, they are just smart to stick together. W's are not racist either. just blind and self defeating. I am doubtfull the w's community concerns will be considered/addressed when the b's have the majority. ....which is a mathematical eventuality.

May 1, 2009

Your point is essential in understanding what is being done in the name of "popular mandate". BO is contemptuous of those who disagree with his plans (re his Tea Party comments). It is time we realize that the number of dissenters is at least 50%, and it is the majority of the people who will bear the brunt of his policies. BO stifles dissent at his peril.

May 1, 2009

The bottom line is YOU LOST. GET OVER IT. Like I said before, Byron is not a racist, he's just a Republican. You know the party of NO, lost in the wilderness waiting for Ronald Reagan to arise from the dead and lead this to the promise land.

May 1, 2009

blacks call each other brothers... whites call each other racists... ??? wake up! turn john stewart off and think for urselves!! before your opinion means even less. look at the tea parties. if they were black runned demonstrations it would have been talked about endlessly on every channel. the president wouldn't even acknowledge he heard of them.? that is a disgrace.

May 1, 2009

Since your going to be called a racist no matter what you say when someone calls you a racist say yea ok whats your point PC is the most dangerous thing facing the country you cant solve problems if you cant talk about them or in some cases even admit them I'm tired of worrying about someones feeling when they could care less about mine

May 1, 2009

Take out the Black prejudice and you have an upopular President

May 1, 2009

the "promise" land is gone.... i'm just trying to hold on to what is left of this land. Sheradg, i hope there is a black left wing nut sticking up for u when the rolls are reversed. then u'll be looking for ronald reagan. I bet u live in an all white community too. you should move where u wont be surrounded by us horrible white people anymore. i recommend south jersey. I just moved from there, u'll fit right in.

May 1, 2009

Why does attempting to analyze poll results, whether he is right or wrong in the analysis, make one a racist? Where do you think the racial breakdown in the poll comes from (certainly it was not produced by Mr. York)and what was the purpose of the New York Times in gathering and deceminating that information, again I assume that it was so they and others could get an informed grip on what groups as a whole were thinking. If that is racisim ...WOW!

May 1, 2009

Now why is it that when racism comes up they always say it's whites hating the rest? Walk down areas of some cities as a white and you can get killed for just BEING white. There are as many or more racist's in this country that are NOT white.

May 1, 2009

hey, Byron, how about a little whine with your cheese. Here's the world's smallest violin playing "my Heart Bleeds for You."

May 1, 2009

Corey Apr 30, 2009 No, sorry, if you're going to look at "numbers behind the numbers" you have to cover both sides: if you make a gross generalization, saying that blacks only support Obama because he's black, you must also accept as a valid argument that whites only oppose Obama for the same reason. There are a lot of racist whites in America, afterall. So do these two biases cancel each other out? Who knows what the actual numbers are, but to marginalize a the opinions of one race, but not the other is pretty racist.

May 1, 2009

@ fish You self-indulgent, narcissistic blowhard, why would you think anyone would even notice you walking down the street anywhere? Oh, my, how important and just sooo really really important you are. wow, can we all notice you? Oh thanks so much! Mighty white of you to let us.

May 1, 2009

Thank you Byron, now for an encore, please explain the irrational popularity of Alan Keyes and go vanish in a puff of logic. QED

May 1, 2009

Time for a two minute hate! Racist! Racist! Racist!

May 1, 2009

exactly fish! killing a white person isn't considered a hate crime either. but it is a hate crime if the reversed happens. but back to the point. i think if black people stick together 4 there common good, thats smart! but why can't white people do that without being made to feel ashamed or ridiculed.? its not the 1960's anymore.

May 1, 2009

here's a generalization for u.. oh look its after 10am.. all the pot smoking white haters are waking up. don't u guys have some colbert report reruns to catch up on.? otherwise you want have an opinion to offer here until he tells u what ur supposed to think. maybe u should just leave this discussion to the grown ups..

May 1, 2009

Byron: You are a poor statistician. That does not excuse the racist views permeating your columns. Ergo, you are a racist. Good day.

May 1, 2009

Byron: You are a poor statistician. That does not excuse the racist views permeating your columns. Ergo, you are a racist. Good day.

May 1, 2009

lebecka, i understand ur frustration. it must be tough to watch a white women walk thru ur neighborhood and steal all the attention away from you. but don't take it out on fish...

May 1, 2009

So he's not "actually" as popular as the overall stats show. What? Blacks are not Americans? That's sure how it reads to me. How about he's "actually" MORE popular than the overall stats show, when you drop out the Christianist fundamentalists who believe that living codes handed down by supernatural beings should be law. Oh, wait, they're almost all white, so they must be "real" Americans.

May 1, 2009

Your excuses would be acceptable if you could produce anything that you wrote in the past that said that 'GWB's sky-high ratings among congenital idiots make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.' You cannot, so you are a racist.

May 1, 2009

Fail. If that was what you wanted to say then you would have said it. You said what you meant.

May 1, 2009

Why didn't Byron simply ask why blacks were overrepresented in the poll? (i.e. If blacks are 13% of the population, why do they represent 22% of the respondents?) Why waste all of this precious time and space on a poorly written, poorly supported hypothesis that blacks opinions skewed the NYT poll simply by being included? Even without the charges of racism, the hypothesis is riddled with holes that many of the comments have already addressed.

May 1, 2009

Why didn't Byron simply ask why blacks were overrepresented in the poll? (i.e. If blacks are 13% of the population, why do they represent 22% of the respondents?) Why waste all of this precious time and space on a poorly written, poorly supported hypothesis that blacks opinions skewed the NYT poll simply by being included? Even without the charges of racism, the hypothesis is riddled with holes that many of the comments have already addressed.

May 1, 2009

Splendid one, nice name... did you know this country was founded by those people that have "supernatural" beliefs.? Did you also know that those people also contribute positively to this country more than any other group.? like the men and women who willed us thru wwII. ur standing on the shoulders of those "fundamentalists" that came before you. i'm not religious but i haven't met any christian criminals. since we all like statistics so much.... what group makes up 90% of the prison population in this country?? oh, but i'm sure that is just a conspiracy too!

May 1, 2009

Some Blacks, Jews, and White Liberals in this country like to play the racist card every time they don’t have a valid argument. I think they believe they can change people’s minds through the racist intimidation word. This only works on apologetic people who are afraid to express their views and instead choose to side with the view that these people have been oppressed. Nonsense, there are racists in every group. Being proud of your group is not racist; it’s being in-tune with your group and proud of your ancestral heritage. There is nothing racist in Bryon York’s article he is merely reporting statistics. As one who does this for a living I know that averages are mean less. Prudent analysts always know what makes up the averages.

May 1, 2009

Some Blacks, Jews, and White Liberals in this country like to play the racist card every time they don’t have a valid argument. I think they believe they can change people’s minds through the racist intimidation word. This only works on apologetic people who are afraid to express their views and instead choose to side with the view that these people have been oppressed. Nonsense, there are racists in every group. Being proud of your group is not racist; it’s being in-tune with your group and proud of your ancestral heritage. There is nothing racist in Bryon York’s article he is merely reporting statistics. As one who does this for a living I know that averages are mean less. Prudent analysts always know what makes up the averages.

May 1, 2009

It's been pointed out elsewhere that Mr. Obama's approval rating among blacks is only slightly higher than what any Democratic president receives. Try substituting Bill Clinton's name for Barack Obama's and see if your post seems racist.

May 1, 2009

I hope that 13% is just your extreme hypothetical.? because the actual number is more like 40%. the number of black Americans is grossly underestimated due to poor census bureau procedures. but bo will take care of that in 2010.

May 1, 2009

You're an idiot Byron York. You don't even acknowledge that black support for dems is usually in the high 80's anyway. Obama got a higher percentage of the white vote than Kerry. But you see race as causation instead of correlation. And you're supposed to an "analyst."

May 1, 2009

I'm not interested in Byron York personally. I don't know who he is, and I don't know what's in his heart. All I know is that his previous column was deeply and obviously racist. Obama's positions are actually less popular overall than they appear, because black people support them? What is that even supposed to mean?

May 1, 2009

"his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are." If African American opinion is equal to white opinion, then Obama's positions appear to be exactly as popular (or unpopular) as they are. If you think black opinion shouldn't count as much as white opinion, then you would likely agree with the author that the "actual" approval of Obama is less than what it appears to be. You conservatives spend so much time looking for reverse racism and other ways to make yourselves the victims that sometimes you shut off the critical thinking switch and throw a reactionary tantrum instead. It's a symptom of what's costing you election after election.

May 1, 2009

The number of white people defending Byron York on this issue make his opinion seem more popular than it actually is. Or something.

May 1, 2009

No, sorry, Byron, this doesn't wash. You'd have to acknowledge that the same holds true for white politicians and voters as well, but you don't. It's like the old joke about Jews only caring about money. It's pointed out that everybody cares about money, and the response is, "I'm just talking about Jews." Same thing here.

May 1, 2009

The number of white people defending Byron York on this issue make his opinion seem more popular than it actually is. Or something.

May 1, 2009

One post after another whining about how "blacks are racist, so it's OK Boo-hoo!" That doesn't excuse York's (or you whiny babies') breathtaking, completely un-self-aware racism. I guess you're all too busy playing the PC victim to take responsibility for your repugnant words and actions. Losers.

May 1, 2009

"What if a president were wildly popular with one group, and only middlingly popular with another group and yet was often portrayed as being hugely popular with the whole group?" He is portrayed as being hugely popular with the whole group because he is. The racial disparity in approval of his policies is largely the same as it is with all Democratic politicians.

May 1, 2009

The dilemma of the old school dying racists is quite apparent. They are the ones who have counseled for years that white racism against blacks no longer exists in America and that Blacks should get over any perceived racial injustices, slights or comments. They should have a sense of humor, lighten up and not always be offended. Now we have the racist rumpists who are in a constant state of offense at what they percieve to be racial slights against them. Come on whitey, lighten up! Don't be so uptight, it's only words! Chickens, meet roost. -GregB

May 1, 2009

Nyron York, why is this so hard to for you to understand? The word that was offensive was the "actually," as in Obama is not actually that popular because his support only comes from blacks. The implication you make is that the black opinion is not the real, "actual" public opinion. That's racist. You're suggesting that black opinion is less relevant than white opinion. As in it's worth 3/5 of what white opinion is worth. Or, I suppose rather than racist you could just be a really shoddy writer. Maybe you should stay away from statistics you don't have the brain to understand.

May 1, 2009

Sorry Byron - I've always enjoyed your reporting (maybe you should ease your way into commentary more slowly) and I've never been fond of the "You're a racist" conversation ender, but you are either being dense on this, or just not using the right words to describe your thoughts. Politicians always have more support from some groups than others. To claim that "his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are" is a rather pointless observation. Those African-Americans get the same vote everyone else gets, so the countries' overall support of Obama's positions are exactly what the numbers say they are.

May 1, 2009

Mr. York, you are a racist, and the column showed it. Not because you looked at the black vote, but because you ONLY looked at the black vote. Where was your corresponding analysis of white, Southern evangelicals, and the Mormons of the intermountain West? Nope, to racist Republicans like you, it's the black vote that counts. And in examining it, you did a shoddy job, not bothering to note that blacks typically give overwhelming support to Democratic candidates to begin with. It's true that Obama's support among blacks went from overwhelming to universal. Now, Mr. York, go have a look at who backed Mitt Romney's campaign, and at who stopped it. Blacks are hardly the only bloc voters in America, but you chose to single them out in a particularly crude way. That's what makes you a typical white racist Republican.

May 1, 2009

It's called a gaffe. It happens to the best of us. I suggest eating your crow in silence and moving along.

May 1, 2009

Shorter Version: BLACK OPINIONS DON'T ACTUALLY COUNT. Obfuscate all you want Mr. York, this is what you said. Apologize now and save yourself or keep fighting and see what people "actually" think about racist journalists in this country keeping their jobs.

May 1, 2009

I understand that you want to look at the subgroups in this poll and that is fine, but your sentence said that his black numbers made it look like he was more popular overall than he actually is. Perhaps you don't understand statistics. Obama is not "portrayed" as popular overall, he IS popular overall. Overall means an average including everyone. An average including blacks. I think what you meant to say was his overall numbers make his support with whites seem larger than they actually are. But you didn't, and instead made (yes) what cannot be explained by anything but a racist comment, which in your defensive crouch you somehow cannot see. And you see, the Bill Gates example is absurd - that example uses a continuous (to infinity) variable (money), which a proportion is not!

May 1, 2009

There's a new poll out showing that the strongest support for torture comes from white evangelical Christians. Let's see if Byron York will come out and tell everyone that this group is inflating the numbers in favor of torture. Mr. York will never do that. Only blacks can be accused of skewing the numbers, because blacks are "the other" while whites are Mr. York's own people.

May 1, 2009

I think York should have said the popularity of Obama's POLICIES are skewed by his enormous popularity among Blacks. They normally would criticize a democratic Prez in higher numbers. With high unemployment at least 50% would say we are in a mess, but now they are inclined to say "Obama is prez, we are on the right track." Or sort of racist-lite, York could say Obama's popularity among voters "actually" available to repubs is overstated unless you backout the black vote.

May 1, 2009

I'm sure it's covered above, but the operative word that drove your post from factual to racist was the word "actually," actually. You wrote "sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are." But how can they appear more popular than they *actually* are? Unless, for some reason, blacks don't *actually* count as much as whites do, when you determine the popularity of his positions.

May 1, 2009

Dear Mr. York: Awesome! Now do Jews!

May 1, 2009

If the idea of black opinion being irrelevant and "not real American" hadn't been a staple of conservative thought for years, it would be easy to dismiss York's inaccurate use of "actually" as just poor word choice. However, to anyone who has ever read what he and the other writers at National Review had to say about the red/blue divide after the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, it is clear that classifying people who support liberal politics as "not real Americans," and drawing attention to the racial characteristics of the red areas vs. blue areas, has been a foundational element of the conservative understanding of politics in this country.

May 1, 2009

Oh my, he's a raaacist!How many of these commentors are actually white, unemployed college students?

May 1, 2009

Anybody could be forgiven for making your original statement. It was clumsy and wrong - but you could have clarified it and moved on. It takes a racist to get defensive about it and blame his accusers. On a side note, take a good look at your supporters comments on this article. Do you really want to appeal to them?

May 1, 2009

"What if a president were wildly popular with one group, and only middlingly popular with another group and yet was often portrayed as being hugely popular with the whole group?" He IS still popular with the "whole group." That "whole group" is Americans, asshat. That's why people are calling the column racist. It's not rocket science. Just apologize for writing something dumb and move on.

May 1, 2009

This defense is even lamer than your original post. It's really not that hard to understand. You said that to assess how popular Obama's positions "actually are" you have to exclude the opinions of blacks. That, of course, makes absolutely no sense.

May 1, 2009

Great response and analysis of this piece at The Atlantic: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/lame-sauce.php#more

May 1, 2009

You blame the "liberals" for calling you out on what is clearly an analytical error on your part, the sort of error that is not uncommon among undergraduates who are taking their first course on statistical inference. It is also an error that isn't fixed in any way by replacing "overall" with "across-the-board." The problem is that what you really meant by "overall" in that sentence is "the opinion among non-Blacks." However, any discussion of public opinion "overall" or "across-the-board" needs to include a representative number of Black in the computation the results are biased. In short, if you want to compare the opinions of Black and non-Black respondents, that if fine and few liberals are going to give you grief. However, you cannot stratify the analysis on race and refer to the non-Black respondents as being representative of "overall" or "across-the-board" public opinion.

May 1, 2009

The problem isn't with your choice of language, Mr York. The racism's not inherent in your language, it's inherent in your attitude. No matter how you rephrase your argument, your attitude remain the same: That the opinions of black people count less. Why not choose to discount the opinions of those demographics that are overwhelmingly AGAINST Obama? Registered Republicans for example? I'd wager it's because registered Republicans tend to be white, and as white, they actually matter.

May 1, 2009

Your Bill Gates analogy betrays/confirms that the original notion was actually racist -- you're implying that there is some sort of weighting we should consider when we poll one demographic compared to another. Opinion numbers are what they are. Obama is popular. The people who find him popular aren't *cheating* by voting twice, are they?

May 1, 2009

I'm sure all the racebaiters will be calling anyone who opposes racial preferences a racist too because we're all Americans.

May 1, 2009

I'm sure all the racebaiters will be calling anyone who opposes racial preferences a racist too because we're all Americans.

May 1, 2009

Of course the word to object to in the piece is the word "it", after all it is the one word the knights of Neep cannot hear! Byron if people want to call you a racist take it as a badge of pride, that means they can't cope with your argument on the facts and need to de-legitimize you.

May 1, 2009

The Gates/bar example destroys your own point. The net worth "actually" is billions. Bill Gates "counts". So, you're admitting your comments were racist, but then you try to defend them? Wow, didn't see that coming.

May 1, 2009

Keep digging, York.

May 1, 2009

OK, but think about this: the NYT poll didn't break things down by religion. White Evangelical Christians are just as monolithic a GOP support group as blacks are for the Democrats. If Obama's popularity among blacks obscures his "across the board" popularity, doesn't his unpopularity among white Evangelical Christians obscure his "across the board" popularity among whites???

May 1, 2009

Let me go on record as stating that: 1. I don't like Obama. 2. I dont care that he's black 3. I still don't like Obama.

May 1, 2009

WHITE POWER!!! Now THAT's racist

May 1, 2009

WHITE POWER!!! Now THAT is a racist statement.

May 1, 2009

I agree with Byron York -- the only "real" Americans (or "across-the-board" Americans) are white Americans, so we really shouldn't count African-Americans in our opinion polls.

May 1, 2009

To EL, you mention the pattern of blacks voting for Democrats more so than Republicans because of where their interests lie. What would those interests be?? Democrats want to make as many Americans dependent on the government as possible -- white or black. Unfortunately, they've just had more success w/ the black population so far. Look at the difference in the current administrations policies - they lead to socialism. Socialism results in complete control by the government. You are supporting something that will destroy this country, leaving something very nasty for all of our children to inherit.

May 1, 2009

The problem isn't the distinction between terms like "overall" and "across the board." The problem is your use of the word "actually." You clearly implied that Obama isn't *really* as popular as his poll numbers suggest because a lot of that support is from black voters. The inescapable implication is that the black support somehow doesn't, or shouldn't, count as much. It's amazing to me that you can't see what a boneheaded, insensitive thing you said. Maybe it wasn't what you meant, but you said it anyway. You should be apologizing instead of whining about being misunderstood.

May 1, 2009

To CommonSense - nice conspiracy theory, but no. Why did black voters show such marked preference for Democrats starting in 1964? Could it be because JFK introduced and then LBJ supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Not surprising to me (I'm white) that blacks would support the party that passed an act banning discrimination in housing, schools and public employment, all while Republicans were supporting the existing Jim Crow laws. Not to mention the Voting Rights Act that Johnson supported in 1965, which removed arbitrary barriers used to disqualify black voters, such as the "poll tax." Your ludicrous theory does not explain why college educated black voters, black voters with high income levels, etc. also voted Democratic. And - surprise! - after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, there were more black entrepreneurs, more professionals, more blacks in the middle-class, period. Take your tinfoil hat off and look at real statistics.

May 1, 2009

El, democrats opposed the 1964bill and Republicans voted for it.Maybe they don't teach that in school anymore.

May 1, 2009

The Examiner deleted pages of comments, mostly critical of York. Another disgrace on top of two already disgraceful columns. I reiterate my resentment that an Examiner is left in my driveway near San Francisco every day.

May 1, 2009

You know what would have kept a "left-wing activist like Matthew Yglesias, or Andrew Sullivan" from thinking you were racist? NOT MAKING RACIST COMMENTS! You should have just apologized instead of trying to weasel your way out of it.

May 1, 2009

To EL: As usual, your 'facts' about the Dems vs. Reps on the civil rights issue is wrong. Go to the following site to read some interesting facts (below is a quote from the article providing some info you might want to take to your moveon.org meetings): http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml "As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes."

May 1, 2009

This is not a black and white issue, if Hillary or Joe Biden were President, they would have same percentage of support by African-Americans. African-Americans left the party of Lincoln, because of the racist white Dems became Republicans and did not support civil rights.

May 1, 2009

This is not a black and white issue, if Hillary or Joe Biden were President, they would have same percentage of support by African-Americans. African-Americans left the party of Lincoln, because of the racist white Dems became Republicans and did not support civil rights.

May 1, 2009

This is not a black and white issue, if Hillary or Joe Biden were President, they would have same percentage of support by African-Americans. African-Americans left the party of Lincoln, because of the racist white Dems became Republicans and did not support civil rights.

May 1, 2009

This is not a black and white issue, if Hillary or Joe Biden were President, they would have same percentage of support by African-Americans. African-Americans left the party of Lincoln, because of the racist white Dems became Republicans and did not support civil rights.

May 1, 2009

Wow that's funny stuff. And the conservatives wonder why their party isn't doing so well.

May 1, 2009

Spin all you want Byron, but discounting a portion of the populace by race is racist. It's the same Jim Crow rationale for voter "reform", poll taxes, and all the other programs and "reforms" that weren't racist but only affect the black population. If you want relevance in Obamas popularity, do the breakout in income strata. It will tell you all you need to know.

May 1, 2009

Indeed, it was the word "actually" that screwed you up. That clearly shows that you think that Obama's actual numbers aren't as good as they appear to be, as they are being skewed upward by black people. And that is a meaningless idea unless we assume that black opinion is somehow less legitimate and doesn't reflect reality. Sorry, but the poll reflects the actual opinion of voters. And while slicing/dicing poll numbers can be useful, it's far less useful if you're doing so to remove an entire voting bloc. And if that voting bloc happens to be a whole race of people, well, you're going to get charges of racism. And rightly so.

May 1, 2009

to know it all and CommonSense, look at my post again. I said "Black voters recognize where their interests currently lie," and I stand by it. Prior to 1964, the Republicans were indeed better on civil rights issues, and accordingly garnered a larger percentage of the black vote. After JFK and LBJ supported the Civil Rights Act and LBJ supported the Voting Rights Act, it went the other way. Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act by greater percentages anywhere but the South. Both southern Democrats and southern Republicans voted against it, but there were a lot more southern Dems at the time. Subsequently some southern Democrats (Strom Thurmond for one) changes parties, and Nixon embarked on his "southern strategy." People know which party is CURRENTLY serving their interest, and vote accordingly.

May 2, 2009

Why is it when either a democrat or republican is voted into office, the winning party's side claims they have received a mandate from the people, when it actuality it's more a rejection of the other candidate than any sort of endorsement. Democrats win office and all of a sudden it's suppose to be an endorsement of affirmative action, homosexual marriage, and all things liberal causes. People, its nothing of the sort. The democrats currently enjoy the advantage of the independent vote in this country. Obama has 3 and 1/2 years to fix the economy, fix our foreign policy, and make certain that his party is not caught up in never ending series of scandals. If he does that, the dems stay in power if he doesn't the independents will give him the heave ho. You people on the left and right are captured votes and when it comes right down to it your opinions will not matter in the next election. That's the way the demographics break out.

May 2, 2009

I'm a fan of Mr. York. Obama and Clinton (who is white, Mr. York) had higher ratings among blacks than "across-the-board" because blacks are overwhelmingly Democrats. Just like GWB's rating among fundamentalists Christians were higher than they were "across-the-board", because fundamentalist Christians are overwhelmingly Republican. This phenomenon is unremarkable, and is so unremarkable that one wonders why Mr. York felt the need to point it out. I believe Mr. York needs to look inside himself to determine why he felt the need to point out the unremarkable phenomenon that a Democratic president would have higher ratings within a core Democratic constituency than he would "across-the-board". From my vantage point, it does appear that Mr. York subconsiously does regard the opinion of a black person as counting less than that of a white person.

May 2, 2009

The real test for racial politics will come when the democrats run a mix of male and female candidates composed of say 2 blacks, 2 hispanics, 2 whites, and 1 other ethnicity. The last Presidential primary showed us how racial prejudices boiled to the surface when a black candidate ran against 1 white women and six or seven white males. You can figure for yourself how important it will be for one of these candidates to capture an entire ethnic group. I will be very interested in seeing just how important the independent vote will be when we see a really diverse set of candidates. Then we will see just how fair and open-minded the minority communities are. Hopefully, the minorities will switch to independents and truly base their voting behavior based on the issues and candidates qualification and not his/her race.

May 2, 2009

Hahahahaha you just owned yourself you racist idiot. This is hilarious because it shows what most conservatives are really thinking: only white people are Americans.

May 2, 2009

Our new leadership sucks... John S is stupid and a whiner. Who cares about white or black america? What ever happened to the US of A? Whiners!!!!

May 2, 2009

Pepe, It's not the inter-party politics where racial/gender politics mattered, it was the intra-party politics where ethnic\gender based politics came into play. Consider, why did the democrats run 1 black candidate, 1 woman candidate, and 6 white male candidates. I think Mr. York is hinting that the democrats stacked the deck by use of racial politics. If Obama could capture a fair percentage of white votes and women and ALL of the black vote he wins. I don' care if your white, black, hispancic or other, that's the nature of politics. Branding someone a racist for analyzing the racial/gender makeup and behavior of the underlying voter population as a racist, simply shows either one is an ignoramus or a politically correct coward.

May 2, 2009

Brave of you Mr. York to even enter those waters. Democrats have the market cornered when it comes to being experts on race relations. I wonder if you would have been crucified if you pondered whether or not the color of Mr. Obama's skin has any impact on why he has a 70% approval rating among blacks on the economy, despite the fact that the economy contracted by more than 6% last quarter. This will be Bush's economy right up until the very minute it begins to recover, at which point it will miraculously become Obama's.

May 2, 2009

Brave of you Mr. York to even enter those waters. Democrats have the market cornered when it comes to being experts on race relations. I wonder if you would have been crucified if you pondered whether or not the color of Mr. Obama's skin has any impact on why he has a 70% approval rating among blacks on the economy, despite the fact that the economy contracted by more than 6% last quarter. This will be Bush's economy right up until the very minute it begins to recover, at which point it will miraculously become Obama's.

May 2, 2009

Don't worry about it Byron. You could be talking about the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and you'll still get accused of racism. It's how liberals argue when they encounter a point they cannot counter or an argument they'd rather not deal with. They'll just scream racism, rinse and repeat.

May 2, 2009

Good lord. This comment stream just shows that the Left cannot talk about race in an objective way. In every election cycle politicians and the media break out pole numbers by race, gender, religious belief, region, sexual preference, etc. Doing so does not show prejudice - it shows an attempt to understand who is voting which way. Do you really think that Obama's polling service does include a breakdown by race? Are you that naive? Also - to the person who confused margin of error with skewing - you should go back to school and take an statistics class.

May 2, 2009

Whoa, that's a quite impressive round of mental gymnastics you presented, Mr. York, to justify your comment. Stop trying. Let the racist comment stand for what it is and move on.

May 2, 2009

Polarization - that should be the greater thought considered. Evidence so far - in the form of congressional votes and comments from Obama himself indicate a more polarized government than even under Bush. Look at Obamas record and proposals, and those of congressional dem leaders, and we have by far the most radical - conserv or lib - government we have ever had. No checks and balances. Take some stats classes, and you'll understand York's point - it's valid.

May 2, 2009

To EL: So this administration is serving the black population? obama is putting more women and blacks in positions of power, but what about the general population? With blacks being hit hardest by the unemployment (and this will not change for a while unless he imposes a law requiring even stronger reverse discrimination) they are not being served very well. You can blame Bush for the economy- which is partially true. But when the dust settles, in about 5-6 years, and history is written a bit more honest, we will see that obama's policies are doing much more damage than anything else. It's amazing - common sense tells you that his actions will do more harm than good. The economy is looking better right now, but he's sowing the wrong kind of seeds. Hide and watch. If he has his way, socialism is being crammed down our throats. I guess if you are a college professor, you welcome this change.

May 2, 2009

If you are third generation welfare recipient, well fed, have a t.v. and radio, a warm apartment, children you can't support without government assistance, yet you can barely read and write, thank your lucky stars you live in good old intolerant, racist, red neck America and don't forget to thank a red neck. They are probably helping to support you. If you lived in other parts of the world you might be hungry, cold, and starving when you go to bed tonight.

May 2, 2009

Stout77, Yes, sort of like how the recession of 81-82 was "Carter's Recession," but when the economy finally improved in 1983, Reagan got all the credit.

May 2, 2009

Troy F. - And Reagan deserved the credit due to the economic stimulus of cutting taxes. The stimulus the press demonized by making fun of the term 'Trickle Down'. Well, it worked. obama can take credit for the improving economy for another couple of months, maybe even to the end of the year, but my prediction is that this will all come tumbling down on them before another 12-15 months. It will be interesting to see how this administration spins it after they take credit for the improving economy in the short run, and then have to explain why the economy goes back down hill. You can't go back and then say 'Oh yea, Bush is now to blame, even though we made it good for a while".

May 2, 2009

Since 97% of all blacks voted for Obama the only logical conclusion is blacks are racist.

May 2, 2009

97% of all blacks voted for the black candidate. The only logical and reasonable conclusion is blacks are racist.

May 2, 2009

The problem isn't with "overall" it's with the part of the sentence that follows. The only way "than they actually are" makes sense is if you discount black opinion. Otherwise, overall this article is perplexing.

May 2, 2009

Obama's low support among idiots makes his policies appear less popular than they actually are.

May 2, 2009

"It is also entirely reasonable to point out that a poll result can be shaped by an extremely high number in one component of the poll result. 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 is a completely bogus analogy. In the bar example, Bill Gates has an extremely high influence on the sample mean because of his income. In an opinion poll, on the other hand, every person counts equally (leaving aside some technical issues). There is no way for one person to have undue influence. "What if a president were wildly popular with one group, and only middlingly popular with another group and yet was often portrayed as being hugely popular with the whole group?" This is not remarkable at all.

May 2, 2009

JD, True, figures don't lie but liars figure. That is why I like my stats sliced and diced before consumption. When it comes to formulating government policy, I want to know what group approves of what policies, so I can try and do a match of who is the direct beneficiaries of this or that particular policy in question. Then I have a little better picture of where I fit in to the picture. Know what I mean? (no pun intended).

May 2, 2009

Weak.

May 2, 2009

Weak.

May 3, 2009

Another way to see how this looks racist to those "left-wing activists" (and anyone else who is looking) is to put the shoe on the other foot. If Ronald Reagan during his presidency had a 70% approval rating among white people, but only a 20% approval rating among blacks (say 60% approval overall), would it ever even occur (or even make sense) to Mr. York to say that Reagan's high ratings among whites make some of his positions appear more popular overall (or "across the board") than they actually are. Like Reagan, Obama's popularity is what it is (and who believes that a politition's popularity is "across the board"?). A subgroup's like or dislike for a President has been computed into his "actual" popularity percentage. Only a person who wishes to discount the subgroup could suggest that the President's "actual" popularity on some of his positions is skewed because that subgroup has been taken into account.

May 3, 2009

Another way to see how this looks racist to those "left-wing activists" (and anyone else who is looking) is to put the shoe on the other foot. If Ronald Reagan during his presidency had a 70% approval rating among white people, but only a 20% approval rating among blacks (say 60% approval overall), would it ever even occur (or even make sense) to Mr. York to say that Reagan's high ratings among whites make some of his positions appear more popular overall (or "across the board") than they actually are. Like Reagan, Obama's popularity is what it is (and who believes that a politition's popularity is "across the board"?). A subgroup's like or dislike for a President has been computed into his "actual" popularity percentage. Only a person who wishes to discount the subgroup could suggest that the President's "actual" popularity on some of his positions is skewed because that subgroup has been taken into account.

May 3, 2009

I am saddened to read your original post and even more so to see that you have totally missed the point in your rebuttal. Please stop humiliating your readers by trying to explain the simple math again. You were clear on that in your original post. Your observation may be interesting in itself, but as others have pointed out repeatedly, it was the word "actually". The overall approval % is what it is. There is no way you can defend your use of the word "actually"; I urge you to apologize appropriately.

May 3, 2009

One could, of course, have made exactly the opposite point about various Republican presidents -- i.e. that their significantly higher support levels among whites than blacks, or among men than women, made them "look a bit more popular than they actually were." But, of course, it would never occur to a conservative 'droid like Byron York to point THAT out.

May 3, 2009

One could, of course, have made exactly the opposite point about various Republican presidents -- i.e. that their significantly higher support levels among whites than blacks, or among men than women, made them "look a bit more popular than they actually were." But, of course, it would never occur to a conservative 'droid like Byron York to point THAT out.

May 3, 2009

One could, of course, have made exactly the opposite point about various Republican presidents -- i.e. that their significantly higher support levels among whites than blacks, or among men than women, made them "look a bit more popular than they actually were." But, of course, it would never occur to a conservative 'droid like Byron York to point THAT out.

May 3, 2009

Now, now, people...if Barack Obama can utter racist words (and marry, hang with, and attend the churches of racists), then why can't Mr. York? A tolerant lot indeed...

May 4, 2009

Racist is a word lazy people use when they don't have a logical arguement.If someone calls you that smile and say, "and your point is?"

May 4, 2009

I have found in life if your doing your best to find something you tend to find it. If you look at this article through the eyes of racism then you will see racism reflected back to you. If you read it at face value and don't read your own predjudice into it then all you see are the stats and some interesting factoids. Hold the mirror up and see what it shows you. All will be revealed.

May 4, 2009

There are some interesting points in the thread if you look for them. Why are Black Americans almost predominantly Democratic as a race? Given the history it makes even less sense. It was the Republicans and Republican philosophy from Lincoln that originally started the freedom movement for slaves. It was the predominantly Republican Northern states that made it happen. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. Democrats founded the KKK and the Jim Crow laws. Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, continue to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. So why does Black America vote Democratic when it only serves to keep them in servitude to the Government? Why engage in social slavery when it took so long to become free to begin with?

May 4, 2009

Jeff- look up Dixiecrats. You are saying, like many Republicans, that blacks just don't know what's good for them. Are women, Jews, Hispanics, gays and young people also too stupid to know what's good for them?

May 4, 2009

His argument is defective, and maybe racist. You don't have to be black or a white liberal to see that, or you need is a brain. I guess that doesn't come standard.

May 4, 2009

Takes a special kind of coward to be scared of admitting a mistake, Mr. York. This is truly pathetic: you said something incredibly stupid (perhaps innocently meaning to say something less stupid and simply failing at that), and now you lack the fortitude to own up to it, thus compounding your error. You are lying to yourself, but nobody else is buying it. Do the right thing: demonstrate some character and self-awareness, and apologize for your comment.

May 4, 2009

Who is this MURPH and who took his brain and left behind an angry white torso? PS: York is not racist, just dim and unable to admit mistakes.

May 5, 2009

Jeff – You failed to mention that those Democrats better known as dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and became the new Republican Party after LBJ signed the civil rights act in 1964. LBJ knew he was signing away the south but he didn’t care. As a result, the Democratic Party became the party that fights for the little people – not the republicans. After 1964, the Democratic party rightfully so gained our support. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that the democrats have been shut out of winning elections in the south since then? You guys WERE the party of Lincoln but now you are the party of big business and you don’t have to be black to understand that.

May 5, 2009

In Zimbabwe blacks poll higher than whites to everyone's disadvantage. It is just that most uneducated blacks, the world over, have a very different view from whites how to deal with things. Look out for alligators wearing ACORN badges.

May 5, 2009

In Zimbabwe blacks poll higher than whites to everyone's disadvantage. It is just that most uneducated blacks, the world over, have a very different view from whites how to deal with things. Look out for alligators wearing ACORN badges.

May 7, 2009

i think the joke with bill gates would make more sense in this case if you said: 6 guys worth 100,000 dollars are hanging out in a bar. along comes bill gates. now you have 7 guys in a bar worth billions of dollars. it's not that bill gates makes the 6 other guys look more rich than they actually are, just like blacks dont make the poll numbers higher than they actually are. and calling your critics left-wing doesnt make their arguements less true. judge an arguement on its merrit, not on the reputation of those who make it.

May 7, 2009

Your response is very fair. But I suggest that your contempt for your accusers in the first paragraph isn't going to win anyone over. The fact is, yes, your statement was rather racist. The important point is there is a difference between inadvertently saying something mildly racist due to the way you have worded something, and actually "being a racist." Which begs the question why your semi-apologetic explanation of your badly-worded sentence was in your last paragraph, rather than your 1st paragraph.... and a sarcastic remark shrugging off claims of racism to lead the story off. Doesn't seem like people accusing you of racism concerns you that much. It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't actually want to publish this semi-retraction and were forced to do so due to your editors being pressured by public opinion and sponsors. => F**k you.

May 7, 2009

I'm not calling you a racist. I'm calling you a stupid racist. This was just a sorry, sorry piece. Now shut up.

May 7, 2009

Yeah as others have pointed out, it's not the word "overall" that is a problem. It's the phrases "appear" and "than they actually are". The approval sum of both whites and blacks, i.e. Americans, is not an appearance, and is the proper characterization of how things actually are. Suggesting that the inclusion of minority black numbers into a majority white poll skews the numbers (making things "appear" different) suggests that only white votes matter, and yeah, is mildly racist. By this same logic, if one were to poll heavily religious people, one would conclude that their minority votes heavily skew Bush's approval rating, making him appear more popular overall than he actually is. The difference is nobody is suggesting that those people's vote shouldn't count. The worst kind of racist is one that doesn't even know he is being so.

May 7, 2009

Write another column. Explain how silly you can be. We are all americans. Nuff said. Also, I make about $60,000 a year and I live pretty well off in California. Go out and talk with people on the street and get to know them. If you told most people that lame joke (it's just not funny in a "ha-ha" way) about Bill Gates raising the average wealth of patrons in a bar using their wealth at around $100,000 a year, most people I know would do a double take. Thank you, Lare

May 8, 2009

I am not sure what is worse the fact that you are an ignorant racist OR the fact that you GET PAID for being an ignorant racist.

May 8, 2009

Byron people who are calling you racist are the same people who voted for Obama. Ignorant blacks and self hating whites.

May 8, 2009

Dear Byron. thanks for the insight. These reflexive screams of racism from the left whenever someone other than Keith Olbermann seeks to comment are nothing more than a present-day version of the old Stalinist tactic of yelling "running dog lackeys of the bourgeoisie." Ouch.

May 8, 2009

Dear Byron. thanks for the insight. These reflexive screams of racism from the left whenever someone other than Keith Olbermann seeks to comment are nothing more than a present-day version of the old Stalinist tactic of yelling "running dog lackeys of the bourgeoisie." Ouch.

May 8, 2009

Nice try, but lets try applying the 'wildly popular with one group and only middlingly popular with another group and yet was often portrayed as being popular' principle elsewhere: John Mccain may have had 53% support at times in the 2008 campaign, but his high approval ratings among republicans made him appear more popular than he actually was. Now why doesn't that make sense? Because to divide people belonging to a larger group into smaller ones and say that because they, inevitably, have different opinions, those groups no longer represent the whole, is ridiculous. You might as well divide us into Obama supporters and non-Obama supporters and say that the former skews Obama's support numbers. It only seems right to you to do it with respect to race because you're racist.

May 9, 2009

To quote Shaun from April 30th: "Conversely, you could have said: 'His middling ratings with white Americans make him appear less popular than he actually is.'" I'm not sure how we define "racist." It seems highly likely you're not racist, if racist means "wishing harm to befall people of color, because of their color." But Shaun's comment is an equally correct read of the poll. You could have said: "His middling ratings with white Americans make him appear less popular than he actually is." But you didn't. So regardless of whether or not you're "racist," the comment illustrates that your article's poll interpretation is somewhat arbitrarily chosen and therefore not very useful. And perhaps racism made you choose your arbitrary perspective, or perhaps it didn't. Perhaps subconscious racism played a role. Or maybe, when you were deciding between your conclusion and Shaun's conclusion, maybe you just flipped a coin.

May 9, 2009

No way to dispute the numbers, so call the guy a racist. Yawn, another superficial knee-jerk.

May 10, 2009

Too many people of any race think anything a member of their race does is just fine. And O. J. didn't kill anyone either did he.

May 11, 2009

remember only white people can be racist. everyone else gets a pass....

Jul 23, 2009

Race is an important issue, it cannot be shoo shooed away. Political correctness should not stop people from speaking out about reality. The reality is this: only an idiot would believe in the ideal that race doesn't matter; it damn well does and there's nothing wrong with it. We can all accept that truth and go on; there's no sin in looking out for your own race first. This doesn't mean that you hate another race, but it's how we're born, it's part of biology and life. But we do need to have some rules and enforce them, so we can have our arguments civily, and do it without degrading into potential violence and crime. I don't want to get into crime stats and race/ethnicity, but we all have to face the facts.

Jul 31, 2009

"if you make a gross generalization, saying that blacks only support Obama because he's black, you must also accept as a valid argument that whites only oppose Obama for the same reason."

Many whites DO support him for that very reason. Makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. This man would not be president if he were anything BUT black. Not with all that baggage (his associations, leftist ideology, etc etc etc) Oh, and I'm Cuban, so good luck with hating me for being a racist white girl.

Jul 31, 2009

"there's no sin in looking out for your own race first."

I disagree with that.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself". PERIOD. We should all strive for that kind of love and respect toward one another. Having said that, just being politically correct is completely missing the mark. Political correctness is a disease that has infected the nation.

Jul 31, 2009

The author is jusr stating the poll numbers.I asked a black friend of mine once to just name one reason that she disliked Bush and she could not even think of one.For some reason African americans have been brainwashed into thinking that the Dems are for them when in fact the social handouts that they initiated did more to hurt African Americans.It was the Republican abolishonists who freed the slaves and the Republican party has the correct idea that education and jobs are the way out of the poverty cycle.The fact that 85-90 percent of any group votes only one way means that there is some sort of herd mentality at play.To be fair, just ask an African american on what issues they support Obama and see if they even know his stand or his record on abortion or any other issue. you may be surprised.

Aug 9, 2009

Mr. York's accounting of the data is objective and disspassionate. People who are well-versed in statistics understand the relevance of such concepts as "skewness", "outliers", etc. It would be interesting to be able to correlate this data with an evaluation of the extent to which the survey participants are actually informed about the administration's policies. But I'm sure that it would be considered too prejudicial to ask such questions.

Aug 15, 2009

I think youre all too worried about the subject of racism. Racism will exist in this country and every other country for the rest of time, so get over it. You people cry like babies about racism while kids are starving, unemployment rises, and people are losing their homes. Cry about something you CAN change instead of always whining about what you cannot.

Sep 26, 2009

Enough of the I'm Black. My mother is white, I was raised by a white family. How about I'm American?????

Sep 26, 2009

I don't even see color when I talk to people. I see personality. When I hear Obama I hear a nacisistic, egotistical maniac that wants everything to be his way like a spoiled brat. Give him a role in a HOllywood MOvie, and maybe he'll step down out of the White HOuse and we choose a leader that isn't embarassed to be an American.

Sep 26, 2009

The only person that made this about race to begin with is Obama. He has set race relations back 50 years.

Oct 15, 2009

Your justification here does not make your comment any less racist. It doesn't matter if Obama's approval rating is 95% among blacks and 50% among whites (or whatever it may be), the important part is that it is at 69% among 'people'. To say that the numbers seem higher than they actually are due to imbalances in numbers among different demographics implies that one demographic's opinion does not matter as much as another's.

Post a comment