Comments on: One Last Post (at least for now) on Clark, Race and Voting

by: Steven

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

Please explain to me how this is a straw man. I get the impression what you are saying by making that assertion is that you don’t think I have made my case. I do not accept, however, that what I have done is build up a false Clark and then knocked him down. The bottom line seems to be that you simply don’t see that Clark could be race-baiting.

Let me ask the question like this: if Clark addressed the Southern Baptist Convention and one of his topics was religious persecution, don’t you think that the audience would assume that he was talking about the persecution of Christians, and not of Muslims or Jews?

]]>

by: Mikhel

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

… then I think it is clear that one is trying to inflame fear based on race and to suggest in no subtle way that blacks are specifically at risk for having their votes lost.

It simply doesn’t follow from,

Suggesting that blacks are more at risk

Claiming that this must be because of institutional racism

Again, I simply don’t know how to more clearly state it: your Clark is a strawman. Blacks — from every analysis we have — are more at risk, whether because of racism or because of geographical location in reference to poverty.

I wonder why Clark talked about these things at that Church? Could it be because he was speaking in front of a black audience? Could it be that this was a specific concern of the audience?

This is my last word on the subject.

]]>

by: DF

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

Also worth mentioning is the fact that, compared to the one person who claims to have been prevented to vote by reason of having been incorrectly placed on a list, there are thousands who were ineligible to vote but voted anyway - overwhelmingly Democratic, disproportionately black. Compared to wht would have been the case if the law had been properly enforced, there were more blacks who were alowed to vote than should have been, not fewer.

]]>

by: Steven

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

Let’s see, if one goes to an African-American church that was once bombed by the KKK and, to quote the NYT piece “Gen. Wesley K. Clark visited the same church on Monday and said African-Americans were still in danger of having their votes go uncounted and their voices unheard.” And then one goes on to talk about the lack of “one man one vote” on some counties, and gto make a large number of allusions to disenfranchisement to a black audience, then I think it is clear that one is trying to inflame fear based on race and to suggest in no subtle way that blacks are specifically at risk for having their votes lost.

I am unsure how one can interpret this event as some sort of general discussion of voting tech and voter registration rolls.

]]>

by: Mikhel

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

Steven —

Yes, exactly. Where did Clark claim that there was institutional racism involved? You put those words in his mouth (unless you have another quote?) and I charged that your argument was a strawman. At present, this seems an obvious conclusion. I’ve read the article, and Clark never mentions racism: he makes claims concurrent with the facts as presently known. You say he charges racism, but he clearly doesn’t. As I pointed out to you in our email conversation, you can still charge race-bating. If you choose to, I’ll say that you’re reading with too broad a brush. But that’s all fair game.

But as I have said repeatedly,

That doesn’t mean, however, that there was institutional racism involved.

And Clark never said it did.

]]>

by: Steven

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

Mikhel,

That is a conclusion drawn from a particular, and politcal, interpretation of the statstics.

Yes, the probability was higher that African-Americans would be affected, because they are statstically more likely either to be poor, or to be ex-felons. That doesn’t mean, however, that there was institutional racism involved.

]]>

by: Mikhel

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

Matthew —

Your comments don’t come off as any more reasonable than those who argue that Bush only won the election because Jeb was the gubnah. When someone sees something they don’t like, they automatically cry, “Political bias!”. It’d be better if people would concede that maybe blacks were disenfranchised (they seem to think so) and just maybe GW is the legitimate president.

]]>

by: Mikhel

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

But Steven, as the report says (and this is all we have to go on, unless you have Something Else) African Americans were rather uniquely at risk. Look right here, Steven:

This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2025 election.[5]

What more do you want? Findings indicate that — yes — African Americans are uniquely at risk. That may have changed, but if I were black, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

]]>

by: Steven

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

Make that “rolls”–I keep, but have mostly caught myself.

]]>

by: Steven

Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000

I stand by the statements insofar as the suggestion by Clark is that African-Americans are uniquely at risk. As I noted in my posts, the issue of voting machines and voter roles can affect blacks, whites, hispanics and so forth. So, no, I haven’t altered my srgument, I still think he was race-baiting, but I have better explained myself.

]]>