Tea Leaves

It's often hard to know the real significance of things, this NRCC spin on the Illinois special election leaves us with only two options:

The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend. In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season. The presidential election is evidence of that. The Democratic candidates are trading election victories from week to week and the nomination could hinge on a few news cycles. The one message coming out of 2008 so far is that what happens today is not a bellwether of what happens this fall.

Either the NRCC desperately needs to fire the buffoon who wrote this and hire someone who can make some sense, or else GOP congressional candidates are just doomed and there's nothing even highly competent spinsters can come up with to obscure that fact.

Comments

GOP congressional candidates are just doomed and there's nothing even highly competent spinsters can come up with to obscure that fact.

Worse still for the GOP, surveys show that spinsters overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | March 9, 2008 4:57 PM

Yeah, it's the fallacy of evidence that proves too much.

If the "one message coming out of 2008" is that no evidence signifies anything . . . then we should all go meditate on a peak in the Himalayas until December. I recommend it as an exercise to all Republicans.

Posted by Ted | March 9, 2008 5:00 PM

GOP congressional candidates are just doomed and there's nothing even highly competent spinsters can come up with to obscure that fact.

Shorter GOP:

We got nuthin'....

Posted by flory | March 9, 2008 5:01 PM

I wonder if the people who put these things out ever think it would be better not to spin so much for a change.

Wouldn't it be a little less embarrassing to say something like:

"It's always disappointing to lose a close election. There is an important election coming up and this shows that the Republicans have to do a better job of making our case to the American people."

Posted by blah | March 9, 2008 5:02 PM

Must we choose? Can't they be incompetent and doomed?

Posted by phil | March 9, 2008 5:15 PM

Known unknowns are the last refuge of the truly incompetent.

Posted by lampwick | March 9, 2008 5:19 PM

Don't they know how to say "doesn't count"?

Sad.

Posted by southpaw | March 9, 2008 5:36 PM

Wouldn't it be a little less embarrassing to say something like....There is an important election coming up and this shows that the Republicans have to do a better job..."

If I may be permitted to generalize, one huge advantage that a "liberal" mindset has over a "conservative" one is a capacity to recognize when one's approach is not working.

The present-day GOP mentality holds that authoritarianism is always the right approach, and if the data don't support that, the data must be wrong, or, in this case, inconclusive.

Posted by James Gary | March 9, 2008 5:38 PM

Well, I for one feel for the poor sucker in the GOP who was given the task of trying to spin the loss of Dennis Hastert's seat. Seriously, imagine if in a couple cycles the Democrats lost Pelosi's seat--how would they spin that?

Now, that doesn't quite mean they are doomed, if only because it is a long time between now and November. But there is very little to say right now to make this look better.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 5:42 PM

the real question is what will the U.S. be like as a defacto one party state after the Republicans finish their collapse. Demographics were going to make the Republicans irrelevant eventually. The incompetence of the Bush Administration and Congressional Repubicans have just sped up the process.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 9, 2008 5:46 PM

Incompetence -- everyone knows that elections that occur in red districts on Saturdays and are open to members of both parties don't count.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 9, 2008 5:52 PM

"But we came within six points of beating Niki Tsongas a few months ago! Everyone knows that coming within six points of winning the other party's seat is just as good as *actually winning it by five points* as Foster did, right? So the special elections record so far is really about even!"

Posted by David T | March 9, 2008 6:04 PM

superdestroyer,

Another political coalition will emerge to form a viable second party. It may be built off the remnants of the current Republican Party and retain the name, although personally I am rooting for a comeback of the Whigs.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 6:19 PM

the real question is what will the U.S. be like as a defacto one party state after the Republicans finish their collapse.

California or Massachusetts-- states with sclerotic establishments dominated by machine politicians occasionally collaborating with reactionaries in conservative districts which forces liberals to mount regular insurgencies to get anything done. Meanwhile, it gives moderate republicans occasional openings to get into office and hand out goodies to their corporate buddies while not offending the wide swath of voters with conservative republican rhetoric.

Expect future Democratic party leaders modeled after Gray Davis and Tom Finneran with Republicans bringing forth a series of tall, handsome empty suits in the hopes that one of them might hoodwink the voters for long enough to send some legislative love to Republican interest groups.

Posted by Tyro | March 9, 2008 6:24 PM

Florida Gov. Charlie Christ is sure doing a fine job of driving the conventional wisdom that the Florida delegates need to be seated at the Democratic Convention. Why the media give this man, who says he's dedicated to electing John McCain in the fall and who is rumored as a top contender for the Rep. VP slot, any credence at all is a mystery to me. It goes to show that the media will run with any kind of BS. I say fuck Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean should do a better job making clear that it was people like Charlie Christ who made the decisions that led to Florida's disenfranchisement. Florida voters need to take their revenge on the people in Florida responsible for moving up the primary and stop whining about it.

Posted by Just Karl | March 9, 2008 6:36 PM

Florida Gov. Charlie Christ is sure doing a fine job of driving the conventional wisdom that the Florida delegates need to be seated at the Democratic Convention. Why the media give this man, who says he's dedicated to electing John McCain in the fall and who is rumored as a top contender for the Rep. VP slot, any credence at all is a mystery to me. It goes to show that the media will run with any kind of BS. I say fuck Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean should do a better job making clear that it was people like Charlie Christ who made the decisions that led to Florida's disenfranchisement. Florida voters need to take their revenge on the people in Florida responsible for moving up the primary and stop whining about it.

Posted by Just Karl | March 9, 2008 6:37 PM

Shit. Rookie move.

Posted by Just Karl | March 9, 2008 6:38 PM

I'm not really disagreeing about the coming Democratic majority, but a lot of the rhetoric reminds me of what the Republicans were saying in 2002. Not that there aren't important differences, but I would urge everyone to remember there is no such thing as a permanent majority. Be confident, but not cocky. It is unlikely the Republican Party will continue as the current coalition, so there very well may be a major realignment that we can't even imagine. For example, maybe it becomes a fiscally liberal, socially conservative party, pulling together a coalition of Hispanics, Southern Baptists, evangelicals, African-Americans and blue collar Catholics. Sure there would be tension in that group, and I'm not saying it's the most likely scenario, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm sure the more politically sophisticated posters could imagine more likely scenarios.

Posted by Alexis | March 9, 2008 6:46 PM

Alexis,

Blacks and Hispanics are just no going to leave the Democratic party. With almost 100% elected Hispanics and Blacks beings Democrats, there is a solid reason to stay. Identify politics is one of the main reasons that the Democratic Party will be the one dominate party.

The people who wrote about the Republicans staying in power refused to even acknowledge that power of identify politics.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 9, 2008 6:54 PM

personally I am rooting for a comeback of the Whigs.

They're back, and their new album is really good.

Posted by Seitz | March 9, 2008 7:02 PM

I don't think it's likely that blacks will leave the Democratic party, but I don't think it's impossible. I bet that if you told someone in 1948 that blacks in 2008 would vote 90% for the Democratic party (of Jim Crow and literacy tests), they would think you were crazy. Certainly over the next twenty years there were signs, but the overwhelming shift to the Democratic party was a big deal. A Republican party led by the likes of Huckabee could put socially conservative Blacks in play, particularly if they perceive the national Democratic party to be the party of gay marriage and looser morals.

I think that Hispanics are more likely to shift. Maybe not in majority numbers, but enough to make a redefined Republican party viable. First of all, the real differences between recent immigrant Mexicans, immigrant Central Americans, hispanics whose families have lived in the Southwest for hundreds of years, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, etc, mean it is less monolithic and more likely to split in ways that make a differently constructed Republican party less viable.

I would caution anyone who counts on either broad group to vote Democratic forever not to take that support for granted.

Posted by Alexis | March 9, 2008 7:10 PM

Oops, I forgot to put in my second point about Hispanic voters - the more they tend to being religious, the more likely it is that they would support a more socially conservative, fiscally liberal party. Would it be that shocking to see the Republican party realign as more of a european Christian Democrat style party? Especially if they changed the name, would it be that impossible that significant numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics supporting that kind of party?

I think a Christian Democrat-type party would have surprising success in the U.S.

Posted by Alexis | March 9, 2008 7:16 PM

Alexis,

blacks commit crimes at about 8 times the rate of whites. Blacks have an illegitimacy rate of about 75%. Blacks are the most non-evangelical Chirstian group in the country. To believe that blacks are social conservatives is wrong to begin with. The same applies to Hispanics. Both groups are both overwhelmingly big government, nanny state groups. All that both groups requests is that the government not ask too much of them. The current form of the Democratic Party is their natural place of non-judgmental big government.

Karl Rove thought that Hispanics could be turned into Republicans and he has been shown to be totally wrong and a fool for believing it.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 9, 2008 7:27 PM

It is a little early to speculate about what the new Republicans (or Whigs, knock on wood) will look like, mostly because we don't know yet just who is going to be most disaffected by the new Democrats. And someone will get disaffected: it is just the nature of democratic government (small "d") to eventually piss off enough people to create an opening for a rival coalition.

For example, did we really know in 2000 that the Bush-led GOP was going to do so much to alienate libertarian types? And did we know in 2000 that Bush was going to fail to keep the nativists in the GOP in line when it came to immigration issues? Not me, at least, so I couldn't have told you in 2000 exactly who was going to be the most alienated by the GOP as of 2006 and beyond.

Note that in the scenario in which this new party is not built off the old Republicans, it could well begin as a splinter group of Democrats. So, another way to think of the question is to wonder which members of the Democratic coalition may be most disappointed by Democratic rule down the road, and for all we know those people could be on the Left rather than the Right--all bets are off when a real realignment is occurring.

Finally, this has nothing in particular to do with the current nature of the Democrats. For example, assuming Obama is a Reaganesque figure, we may be looking at the Democratic candidates bickering in 28 years over which of them are the true heirs of Obama, while the Whigs are preparing to sweep them out of power in another realignment.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 7:39 PM

superdestroyer-

Whatever, you're not even bothering to read what I'm saying. Your statistics are irrelevant as to the point about whether 90% of african-americans would support the current Democratic party vs. a christian democrat style party. Your stereotyping is comical, showing you have no idea of the difference between a liberal chicano and a conservative miami cuban. As to blacks being the "most non-evangelical Chirstian[sic] group," I suggest you take some time to visit your average white mega-church and your average black mega-church and tell us about all of the differences.

Posted by Alexis | March 9, 2008 7:40 PM

If "overwhelmingly big government" and fornication are your criteria, then you've just described the current Republican party. But don't let that disturb your racist world view.

Posted by phil | March 9, 2008 7:41 PM

My guess is that, if the writer of the press release is fired, it will not be for incompetence or stupidity. Rather, it will be for calling the Democratic candidates "Democratic candidates" and not "Democrat candidates."

Posted by KenS | March 9, 2008 7:48 PM

Alexis,

Yes, I read what you wrote. Other than Cubans, all Hispanics subgroups vote over 65% for Democratic candidates. The only Hispanics in Congress that are Republicans are Cubans. However, when the Republicans lose power in cuba, they will quickly migrate to the Democratic Party.

However, if you plot out Democratic Party support with illegitimacy rates, you will find a very high correlation. Women who have children out of wed lock want a big government, nanny state. People who have been arrested and are part of the criminal justice system are naturals for the Democratic party. Why do you think Senator Obama talks about racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

Poorer groups want large government and is non-judgmental. Blacks and Hispanics are in that group.

And black and white churches are very different. Black churches are more like social clubs and religious orders that are trying to recruit new members. The last thing that blacks would support is the government trying to enforce sexual morality, abortion, or medical procedures. The same goes for Hispanics.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 9, 2008 8:12 PM

I'll go with Matt's second theory. I mean, what the hell else could they say, given a district that voted for Bush by 11 points last time? (I also agree with KenS's suspicion.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 9, 2008 8:42 PM

having seen too many elections thrown away by the Democrats to the Republicans during the last thirty eight years, I am still skeptical about all this high fives and dancing in the streets by the Dem supporters.

Posted by gregor | March 9, 2008 8:56 PM

The last thing that blacks would support is the government trying to enforce sexual morality

The majority of black churches view homosexuality as immoral and this view is widespread in the black community. I don't think blacks will defect to the Republicans over this issue alone, but I get Alexis' point that a socially conservative fiscally liberal party may do much better at attracting support than the current Republic Party.

Posted by Just Karl | March 9, 2008 8:56 PM

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but . . .

Poorer groups want large government and is non-judgmental.

But smarter groups want judgmental and is interested in grammar.

Posted by Ed Hominem | March 9, 2008 9:47 PM

Re : Karen Hanretty's comment,(spokesperson for the NRCC),---

The one thing 2008 has shown is that one election in one state does not prove a trend. In fact, there has been no national trend this entire election season...

I'm left with the mental image of Kevin Bacon's character at the end of the movie Animal House
shouting frantically at the rioting parade crowd,
"Remain calm. All is well."

Yeah..just keep telling yourself that.

Posted by lilysmom | March 9, 2008 10:14 PM

superdestroyer-Whatever, you're not even bothering to read what I'm saying. Your statistics are irrelevant

And also, you know, complete bullshit.

Posted by Marc | March 9, 2008 11:31 PM

This special Congressional election was a proxy fight of sorts between Obama and McCain, with Obama supporting Bill Foster and McCain supporting Oberweis. Democrat Bill Foster's victory over Republican Jim Oberweis in Denny Hastert's old congressinal district lends support to the idea that Obama possesses coattails, and that unlike the Clintons he could help Democrats to expand their majorities in both houses of Congress.

That's something for the superdelegates to keep in mind when deciding who should be the Democratic candidate for President. The Clintons are good at winning elections for themselves, but they suck at actually building Democratic governing majorities.

Posted by eltoro | March 10, 2008 12:40 AM

Marc,
For those arguing about statistics.

From http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/greenbook2003/AppendixM.pdf

The illegitimacy ratio varies considerably by race and ethnicity. In 2002, the
ratio was 33.8 percent for unmarried women of all races; 22.9 percent for
non-Hispanic white women; 43.4 percent for Hispanic women; and 68.0 percent for
black women (National Center for Health Statistics, 2003, p. 3).,

Does anyone believe that a demographic with a 68% illegitimacy rate can be considered socially conservative?

From http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#jail

Demographics
• Women were 12% of the local jail inmates in 2002, up from 10% in 1996.
• Jail inmates were older on average in 2002 than 1996: 38% were age 35 or older, up from 32% in 1996.
• More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996.
• An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity.

the demographic groups that are about 25% of the population are about 60% of the prison population. Do you really believe that such a demographic group would ever be in the same political party with white social conservatives?

The best way to describe black politics is big government libertarians. They want the government to provide a large array of benefits and jobs. However, they want the government to leave them alone in their personal behavior. They will stay home in the Democratic Party. As long as they receive enough benefits from the government, they will tolerate gays, tree huggers, and do-gooder progressives.

Considering that the black and Hispanic population is growing relative to the white population, there will soon be a period when there is just not enough people will to function outside of the Democratic Party for a second party to be functional and relevant.

As the demographic of California become the demographics of the U.S., the U. S. will become as much a one party state as California is now becoming.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 10, 2008 7:55 AM

"That's something for the superdelegates to keep in mind when deciding who should be the Democratic candidate for President. The Clintons are good at winning elections for themselves, but they suck at actually building Democratic governing majorities.

Posted by eltoro | March 10, 2008 12:40 AM"

But then we wouldn't be in a co-dependent relationship with the Clintons if there are other Democrats around. If the Clintons and their supporters aren't there to point out that we have only twice since the end of WWII with Bill and that we must therefore bow down to them on everything, what will we do? We obviously can't think for ourselves, which is why the Clintons are right to pull out the Fear of a Republican Planet on us whenever we think of disobeying them.

Really, it is amazing how little fundraising and campaigning the Clintons have done since 2000 for other Democrats. If I had to use one word to describe why so many superdelegates support her, it would be fear. You can do whatever on the issues, but you must fear the Clintons.

Posted by Reality Man | March 10, 2008 8:03 AM

"Does anyone believe that a demographic with a 68% illegitimacy rate can be considered socially conservative?"

Superdestroyer,

Yes, they can be. Hypocrisy creates all sorts of cognitive dissonances, which is why the GOP is the home to gay conservative Congressman who oppose gay marriage while cruising in airport bathrooms. Moreover, it has been pointed out that the most socially conservative states tend also to have the highest divorce rates, while socially liberal states like Massachusetts tend to have the lowest.

One could argue then that a community's receptiveness to political messages of social conservativism is correlated to how much breakdowns in traditional mores have negatively impacted the community as a whole. African-Americans have been more negatively impacted by high rates of illegitimacy than any other racial group, therefore messages about the need to re-establish traditional mores will actually resonate with them than any other group. That is why in the long term, the GOP won't disappear. As the predominance of whites comes to an end, race and identity politics will be become less salient to former racial minorities, and economic and social issues will become more important. Blacks and Hispanics who are appalled by the breakdown of the traditional family within their communities will have less reason to stay with the Democratic Party, and will bolt to the GOP once the GOP realizes that white social conservatives aren't big enough of a segment to serve as the GOP base anymore. The GOP will maintain social conservatives as its base, but that base will become less white and more brown & black.

Posted by eltoro | March 10, 2008 11:30 AM

eltoro,

You should look at Hawaii and its politics more closely. In a situation where one ethnic group is not the majority, identify politics increases instead of decreases. Identify politics is here to say in the U.S. and as the Democratic party becomes dominate, it will use identify politics to its advantage. Why else do you think that Democratic candidates use the term "Tax the Rich" when in front of an audience that is majority black or Hispanic. the audience will interpret Rich to mean White.

The breakdown of the family gives reason for blacks and Hispanics to support the large handouts of the Democratic Party. Why would those groups walk away from the powerful politicians who are handing out government funds?

There is just no demographic groups that the Repubicans can make inroads with without losing more support than it gains. That is why the U.S. will soon be like California, a defacto one party state.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 10, 2008 11:40 AM

Why does superdestroyer keep calling it "identify politics"?

eltoro, the problem for Republicans is that southern whites and African-Americans can never be members of the same party at the same time. While the Republicans might have hope if they kept southern whites on the margins, the problem is that the Republican party has now reached the point where it is centered around the south.

Posted by Tyro | March 10, 2008 12:25 PM

Fun with numbers.

You posted some bullshit figures about African Americans, superdestroyer--if that is your real name! and when you got called on your bullshit you backpedaled and cited some different numbers to justify it. But the numbers in those reports still don't mean what you claim they mean.

You wrote,

blacks commit crimes at about 8 times the rate of whites.

And, then, when called on it, you cited a report that says

More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996. [...] An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity

So blacks and whites were incarcerated in roughly equal numbers (40% of the local jail population in 2002). From that, you claim that blacks (roughly 12.5% or 1/8th of the population) must be committing crimes at about eight times the rate of whites.

But that figure doesn't follow. Yes, proportionally, more blacks are in jail--but that only means that more blacks are being arrested and convicted, not that they are committing crimes at a higher rate. In fact, another BJS report at the same site shows that from 1992-1998, whites were responsible for 60.4% of all violent crimes, more than twice as many as the 27% for blacks.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ivc98.pdf

See Table 8. Now, whites make up much more of the population (about 74% in 2006, or roughly six times the black population, which still puts us nowhere near your "eight times" figure), but this number shows us that you can't extrapolate criminality from jail population. Whites committed more than twice as many violent crimes as blacks in the 90s, but they are jailed in roughly equal numbers. (Of course, you have to factor in all those nonviolent drug crimes--where the laws are weighted much more heavily against blacks.)

That tells us a lot more about the criminal justice system than it does about either whites or blacks.

Your other figure was even more egregious. You wrote,

Blacks have an illegitimacy rate of about 75%

And then, when called on it, you cited a report that says

The illegitimacy ratio varies considerably by race and ethnicity. In 2002, the ratio was 33.8 percent for unmarried women of all races; 22.9 percent for non-Hispanic white women; 43.4 percent for Hispanic women; and 68.0 percent for
black women

First of all, I notice that 68% reads substantially lower than "about 75%"--but your original framing is even more dishonest than that.

The passage you quote is discussing the illegitimacy ratio, which expresses nonmarried births as a percentage of all births within a population.

But you initially claimed that blacks had an illegitimacy rate of about 75 percent. The illegitimacy rate measures the number of illegitimate births among all unmarried women in a population. That number will be quite a bit lower than the illegitimacy ratio (since most women in any given year don't have a child). This distinction is clearly stated in the very next section of the report you linked to.

And according to that report, the illegitimacy rate is 68.2 births per 1000 unmarried black women ages 15-44. That comes out to about 6.8 percent of unmarried black women having children out of wedlock.

When you said black women have an illegitimacy rate of 75%, you were literally implying that three quarters of all single black women have children every year. You were also multiplying the actual illegitimacy rate by a factor of eleven.

You've been marshalling these cooked numbers in support of your claim that blacks will not become conservatives any time soon. That point, I agree with. And I agree in part because conservatives have spent the last forty years demonizing and scapegoating blacks with exactly these kind of distortions, twisting the numbers to paint them all as felons and unwed mothers. I don't think blacks will forget that any time soon, especially not while people continue to do it.

So thanks, "superdestroyer," for doing the good work of shoring up the liberal coalition.

Posted by Marc | March 10, 2008 5:16 PM

Re Reality Man

"Really, it is amazing how little fundraising and campaigning the Clintons have done since 2000 for other Democrats"

I can't speak for other states but Senator Clinton held a big fundraiser for Senatorial candidate Jim Webb in Virginia.

Posted by SLC | March 10, 2008 5:19 PM

Marc,

The 64% rate includes Hispanics along with non-hispanic whites. thus, the real white rate is much lower.

You arguments on out of wedlocks births is typical activist nitpicking. 68% of blacks born in the U.S. are born to single mothers. That is not a group that ever be considered social conservatives. Just because blacks attend black churches does not make them social conservatives.

However, you proved the point that blacks and hispanics will stay with the Democratic party because the Democratic Party will act as their enablers for their behaviors.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 10, 2008 7:32 PM

The 64% rate includes Hispanics along with non-hispanic whites

I can't tell what number you're referring to now, but it doesn't match any of the figures you cited earlier. The closest matches in the report you yourself linked to would be the 68 percent illegitimacy ratio or 68.2 (per 1000) illegitimacy rate for black women, but those figures are for black women only. The report does distinguish between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites (although it does not give any numbers for Hispanic blacks).

It seems like you can't type the same number twice, and you're still not acknowledging the difference between a rate and a ratio. And the difference between a 75% illegitimacy rate and a 6.8% illegitimacy rate is not nitpicking.

In other words, superdestroyer, your numbers are bullshit, and they're getting worse each time.

Posted by Marc | March 10, 2008 8:02 PM

marc,

In the crime statistics, the perpetrators of violent crime when broken down by race combine Hispanics and Non-Hispanics white in the same 64%.

Now if you want to produce a reference that proves that blacks commit crimes at the same rate as whites, please do. If not, please review http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

If you want to produce a reference that shows that of live births that whites have the same percentage of births to single mothers as blacks, please do. If not, see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/prelimbirths05_tables.pdf#1
69% of blacks born in 2005 were born to single mothers.
However, you have chosen the path of nitpicking. Typical of an activist who does not have the facts to stand on.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 10, 2008 9:13 PM

Re: Blacks are the most non-evangelical Chirstian group in the country.

???
It's my understanding that many Black churches are very similar to white Evaneglical churches in their basic theology, albeit their worship services tend to be a bit more festive.

Re: blacks commit crimes at about 8 times the rate of whites. Blacks have an illegitimacy rate of about 75%.

Interestingly enough you will find that white Southerners, despite their reputation for religiosity and social conservatism, also exceed the national norms for aberrant behavior, from crime to divorce. To the extent that Black problemsi n this area is not a legacy of Black economic circumstances it may well be the legacy of Southern culture. There's no real conflict between claiming conservative belief and failing to live up to them. It's called "hypocrisy" and it's a very old trait of humankind in general.

Posted by JonF | March 10, 2008 9:16 PM

In the crime statistics...

Ah. So you were referring to a completely different set of numbers with that 64% line--with no context, since everything else in your previous post refers to illegitimacy rates--and you still got it wrong. The figure is 60.4%.

Do you even pay attention to what you write?

Now if you want to produce a reference that proves that blacks commit crimes at the same rate as whites, please do. [...]

If you want to produce a reference that shows that of live births that whites have the same percentage of births to single mothers as blacks, please do.

I notice that whenever someone challenges you, you demand that they address some other, absurd point they're not making--either your own claim that blacks will never be conservative (probably true, but not for the reasons you offer) or this ridiculous straw-man argument that I'm saying whites and blacks have the same crime rates or illegitimacy ratios.

I'm not. I'm saying that the figures you invented upthread are bullshit, which they are, and that the reports you cite don't support your bullshit numbers, which they don't. I notice that the BJS link you just provided doesn't show blacks committing crimes at anywhere near the "8 times" figure you pulled out of your ass and then backed away from, even when you adjust for their percentage of the population.

Typical of an activist who does not have the facts to stand on.

If you want to pretend your stereotypes are based on fact, it would help if you cited reports that actually show the things you say they show, interpreted their findings correctly, and stopped changing the numbers from post to post.

Posted by Marc | March 10, 2008 10:14 PM

"You should look at Hawaii and its politics more closely. In a situation where one ethnic group is not the majority, identify politics increases instead of decreases. Identify politics is here to say in the U.S. and as the Democratic party becomes dominate, it will use identify politics to its advantage. Why else do you think that Democratic candidates use the term "Tax the Rich" when in front of an audience that is majority black or Hispanic. the audience will interpret Rich to mean White."
er
Superdestroyer,

Are you saying that Hawaii is more racially polarized than states like Georgia or Mississippi, especially during the Jim Crow era, when politicians like George Wallace appealed to white identity politics by saying "nigra, nigra, nigra", as LBJ so vividly put it? I seriously doubt that; you need to provide some examples that show Hawaii to be more racially polarized than the former states of the Confederacy.

I suspect that what you view as an increase in racial identity politics is simply a breakdown in traditional political coalitions among non-whites. Typically, when whites are the majority of the population, non-whites tend to band together in response to the shared discrimination they experience under white majority rule. However, when whites need the support of some non-whites in order to form a majority, unity among non-whites tends to break down.

In Chicago, African-American mayor Harold Washington gained the support of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and even some whites. Irishman Richard M. Daley gained election in the aftermath of Harold Washington's death by gaining the support of whites, Hispanics, and Asians, while his African-American challengers were only able to field support in the Black community.

Was this due to an increase in identity politics? No, Chicago was (and) is one of the most racially segregated cities in the country, so racial identity politics (especially among whites) have always been very strong. What happened is that the city demographics changed to the point were whites no longer had a numerical majority, and thus any politician wishing to achieve citywide office had to gain the support of more than just one racial group. Thus, a white politician like Daley needs the support of both whites and non-whites to get elected mayor; the same is true, though, of black politicians in Chicago also. This creates a fluid dynamic in city politics, and therefore no politician with ambitions to be Da Mare can get away with support only from one racial group.

Moreover, Mayor Daley has not been content with maintaining just the coalition that first put him into office. He has steadily courted African-American voters (particularly middle-class ones) over the years, and over time has gained larger and larger pluralities of support from African-American voters. In the 2003 election, he was actually able to win a majority of black voters, and won in every ward of the city, including ones where the residents are overwhelmingly African-American. His African-American vote was reduced to a plurality in the 2007 election, but it was a healthy plurality.

Thus, identity politics in Chicago have actually weakened now that whites are no longer a majority. The success of both Harold Washington and Richard M Daley in building multi-racial coalitions have shown that perpetuating fear and/or resentments of other racial groups won't fly in the city's current political climate.

I've got news for you, Superdestroyer; Democrats say tax the rich in front of majority white audiences also, particularly working class ones. That's why they talk about repealing the Bush tax cuts. Moreover, just as working class whites interpret Rich to mean Rich, working class Blacks and Hispanics also interpret Rich to mean Rich. Likewise, a millionaire Black or Hispanic is not going to interpret the phrase "Tax the Rich" as a tax only on Whitey; he or she knows that the Tax Man will be coming for him or her also.

Posted by eltoro | March 11, 2008 12:53 AM

marc

From the BJS that I linked to:

In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites

If you go back to the 1990's the differences were 8 to 1 if you look at the graphs. That backs up my original positions. Now if you would care to provide a reference that disputes that I would be in shock.

I also noticed that even though 68% percent is slightly lower than 75%, there is litte BS in my initial claim that most blacks born in the last few years are born to single mothers. I was off by less than 10%.

In the end, the destructive behaviors in the black community will increase the demand for government services while creating a demand for the government to stay out of personal lives. Black Americans are big government libertarians who have little use for social conservative whites. You no doubt realize that a culture that promotes "No Snitching" is not going to join with any social conservative movement.

Eltoro,

You should study Hawaii a little more. It is the state with the lowest percentage of whites in the U.S. In Hawaii, the ethnic Japanese feud with the ethnic Filipinos and the ethnic Polynesians.

Hawaii is different that a large urban city because Hawaii does not have suburbs to which the whites have moved.

Even when blacks and Hispanics make up more than 50% of the population, they will still stick together because the whites, on average, will be more affluent and thus the target to tax. The fight will be over how the spend the tax dollars and will occur inside the Democratic Party. My guess is that the solution will always be to raise taxes some more instead of either side losing out on the largess of the government.

Also, when I hear my black co-workers complain about their bills, I have my doubts that they believe that they will have high taxes along with whites.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 11, 2008 10:51 AM

marc

From the BJS that I linked to:

In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites

If you go back to the 1990's the differences were 8 to 1 if you look at the graphs. That backs up my original positions. Now if you would care to provide a reference that disputes that I would be in shock.

I also noticed that even though 68% percent is slightly lower than 75%, there is litte BS in my initial claim that most blacks born in the last few years are born to single mothers. I was off by less than 10%.

In the end, the destructive behaviors in the black community will increase the demand for government services while creating a demand for the government to stay out of personal lives. Black Americans are big government libertarians who have little use for social conservative whites. You no doubt realize that a culture that promotes "No Snitching" is not going to join with any social conservative movement.

Eltoro,

You should study Hawaii a little more. It is the state with the lowest percentage of whites in the U.S. In Hawaii, the ethnic Japanese feud with the ethnic Filipinos and the ethnic Polynesians.

Hawaii is different that a large urban city because Hawaii does not have suburbs to which the whites have moved.

Even when blacks and Hispanics make up more than 50% of the population, they will still stick together because the whites, on average, will be more affluent and thus the target to tax. The fight will be over how the spend the tax dollars and will occur inside the Democratic Party. My guess is that the solution will always be to raise taxes some more instead of either side losing out on the largess of the government.

Also, when I hear my black co-workers complain about their bills, I have my doubts that they believe that they will have high taxes along with whites.

Posted by superdestroyer | March 11, 2008 10:51 AM