Was anyone else irked by the continuous yammering about "the black vote?"

[afraid_of_the_dark]

I was watching the coverage of the voting last night, and I couldn't believe how many times the newscasters obsessed over the turning of "the black vote" from Sharpton to Edwards in South Carolina! I just thought that it was a particularly racist notion. It may have happened times in the past when a candidate stood up for the rights of the African-American voters in particular (in which case it would make sense that they would vote similarly), but I couldn't believe that they assumed all African-Americans would vote for Sharpton, simply because he is of the same skin color.

Anyone have any thoughts on this - particularly Edwards or Sharpton supporters, or those who are African-American?

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. I thought it was a legitimate observation.

There was every reason to assume that Rev. Sharpton would do much better among black voters than he did, based on polling, and that he didn't was surprising. I think it would have been even more racist to pretend that it didn't happen. :shrug:

[PretzelWarrior]

4. well, Sharpton won more than Dean..so he did better than

the polls a few weeks ago suggested. Black people are just as fickle as white people. THis black person is conservative. That black person is liberal. Black or african-american voters are like white voters except the color of their skin. Look past that. I sure wish the media would.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. I was. it was very racist.

like..."Sharpton's gonna get that black vote." Or..."what a surprise, those blacks voted for a lot of different candidates based on their individual preference. We thought they were robot clones and would merely vote for whoever the leaders said...like the Republicans do."

The really funny thing is they were able to distinguish how difficult it is to capture large blocks of the latino vote in sw. Media really is a bunch of lazy SOBs looking for the easy headlines and stupid analysis that any talking head can spout off and/or agree with. Al Franken is my hero. He nailed them on this, and some are learning. Others are just still sitting there whoring away.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

9. This is what I was getting at...

"Or...'what a surprise, those blacks voted for a lot of different candidates based on their individual preference. We thought they were robot clones and would merely vote for whoever the leaders said...{snip}.'"

I think it was that assumption, or something similar that was so insulting. So one can't have a personal preference, one must go along with whatever your ethnic/religious/gender group (etc.) is doing?

[asjr]

3. I didn't think it was racist per se

but I am forever stymied by the reactions to everything concerning these "commentators" and "pundits." You would think that they were intelligent enough to raise the question without making it a sports event. That is what CNN has turned into. They treat this as a sports event. And it usually is not on the players but themselves. They sure are getting a lot of air time. And the partisan comments just make me sick.

[3rdParty]

5. I wondered the same thing

Jesse Jackson won the state a few years back. Why did he win and Sharpon didn't? Why didn't Sharpton 'speak' to them and 'connect'? I was really routing for Al, but it looks like he's got no shot unfortunately.

[TexasSissy]

6. No, I think it was valid. The African Amer. community has worked long and

hard to be recognized as a voting block to be reckoned with. They now are.

Sharpton spoke about race at virtually every debate, and spoke about the Af. Am. vote in SC. So Sharpton did indeed make it an issue there.

I think this is valid and should be discussed openly. It is certainly on the minds of the voters (black and white) and on the minds of the candidates, so it should be discussed. Blacks have certain issues that mean more to them than to whites, although there are a lot of issues equally important to all races.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

10. Being unified on one issue

and voting for a candidate that supports that issue I can understand. But when they were interviewing African-American voters about this, they said that other candidates seemed to address their needs more. The way the interviewer persisted on this seemed (to me, and I might be wrong here) like she was surprised that they weren't voting for the only black candidate left in the race. I'm sorry, but I still think something sounds funny here.

[rucky]

7. The Black Vote going to Sharpton was also Sharpton's assumption

[corporatewhore]

8. well for me The Hispanic Vote (not really responding to question just ramb

lin I feel like it just dehumanizes me into something a cannidate needs not that they are going to actually care and listen to our concerns

[afraid_of_the_dark]

11. And that's why I worry...

Bush's newly revealed idea on what to do with illegal immigrants is just another example of this. He doesn't really care what happens to these people, but it is just a naked grab for "the Hispanic vote." Now, if there was actually a candidate who genuinely cared, had good ideas and lots of support behind him/her so it would actually be implemented, I think that would be a different story. But that has been reduced to: "What can I do to get a large group of people to vote for me? I got it - I'll say I'm going to help urban school children/illegal immigrants/etc., to get the to vote for me!"

[theboss]

13. Are you new to politics?

Politicians have been making naked pleas to voting blocs since at least mass immigration of the late 19th Century. It's just taken off since the 60s and the advent of identity politics.

(And to be honest, Democrats were typically much better at this than Republicans. That was until Republicans decided that "Pissed-Off White Guys" were a voting bloc.)

[afraid_of_the_dark]

14. I understand the history of the matter at hand...

but thanks for the history lesson. I'm not so much disturbed about the "black voter" bloc that you described, but that they were assumed to vote for the only black candidate left in the race.

[theboss]

12. How is it different from "the union vote?"

Or the "Evangelical vote?" Or the "gay vote." We have voting blocs. You can deny it all you want but I can produce 40 years of data to show it exists. And trust me, the candidates know the blocs better than anyone are doing their best to get a specific message to a specific group.

Blacks vote at a 90 percent rate for Democrats. They are arguably our most important voting bloc. And S.C. is a state where 50 percent of the voters in the Primary were black. And Jesse Jackson won something like 80 percent of them in 1988. So, that bloc is a legitimate issue and, again, I guarantee you all the candidates were courting it. And Sharpton was counting on it. And he got a paltry 25 percent of it.

[abburdlen]

15. Why didn't Gephardt

Do better with blonde voters and Iowa?

[IowaBiker]

19. Two things

1) Not a lot of natural blondes.

2) He's too nice.

--Brian

[TheDonkey]

16. Showed african americans are solidly democratic but not

alligning to one canidate (sharpton included like many thought).

I wasn't irked by it (being African American). I was pretty happy to see how independent the AAs in the south were in choosing a canidate w/o being told ot just support Sharpton (who I'm voting for living in PA).

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. They should give more demographic breakdowns

than just the A.A. vote.

[progressivebydesign]

18. I think it's simplistic to think they'd vote only for blacks.

That's like saying I'd vote for Bush, because he's caucasian. Unbeknownst to media pundits, people of color are able to reason and discern issues, just as any voter would do. The notion that they would vote for Sharpton based on his skin color, is to forget that Al Sharpton has not been a largely popular figure. Jessie Jackson had much more respect of the black community than Sharpton ever had. Yes, he's a great speaker, but it's not enough to overcome his past antics. Black voters want the same things we do in a candidate, regardless of their skin color.