The exact question was,
"In your opinion is it appropriate to vote for Obama, even in part, because he is African-American?"
To my knowledge none of the respondents knew how any others had answered before answering themselves.
Below are the initial responses, verbatim, as well as basic demographic info.
W/M, 40's, liberal D:
All of Western Pennsylvania is NOT voting for him for this reason... so it seems only fair to me.
Sorry. Was this a serious question?
My opinion is that the Presidency is no place for affirmative action policy. However, the fact that Obama is African-American has IMMENSE benefits to US interests. In Europe and much of the Third World, he's so well-liked that just by electing him we would erase a lot of the enmity we've accrued over the last 8 years. Also, to elect a Black guy in a country that's only 12% Af-American reinforces what I think the rest of the world (and we) like to believe about America: that we're a progressive country that values merit above all else.
So yes.
W/M, 50's, moderate D:
Clearly it's racist to vote against him for that reason, but your question, taken in a general sense, has troubled me for a long time. I THINK the answer is no for a number of reasons. 1) One can vote for him, IN PART, for that reason and not be a racist in fact. It doesn't work the other way. 2) I believe that voting for him IN PART because of his race serves a greater purpose than the race issue itself. 3) There are more reasons, but my brain is too small to articulate them.
W/F, 50's, liberal D:
However, if all things were equal (they are not in my opinion--McCain is a B actor and needs to remain 1 of a 100, at best) I would definitely take into account that my vote would advance diversity, send a signal to the mostly non white world that this, too, is America, uplift present Americans of that color, race, gender, ethnic group, and thus reinforce their pact with the American experiment, etc etc. I got no problem including factors such as color as part of my overall decision. It's all a cost benefit analysis and the benefit of a woman, Black, Hispanic, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Atheist, Asian, president would break us from this historical tyranny of maintaining power for a certain model, and free just a little more from our definition of power and who should be trusted with it. All that advances my country's best principles and reinforces a nation of laws, and not men.
What's your answer! Email publocc@gmail.com
W/M, 50's, I:
Jeremy's afraid of a "Bradley effect" but I think the reverse may be more important this election and I KNOW that there are some people who ARE voting for Obama, at least in part, based on race.
I'm having trouble wrapping my pea brain around this one but it strikes me as similar to the arguments over affirmative action. The intent of a.a. was to do a good thing, to help a.a.'s. To attempt to do a good thing is...good! But in doing so a.a. did discriminate against all other races and ethnicities and that was bad and the courts cut it way back. The first time I ever broke with my party on an issue was this one. I wrote against it (in my dad's paper) in 1978 and I've never changed my mind.
I reserve the right to change my mind on this variant but at this point in my "thinking" I believe it would be wrong to have race play any part in this vote. I can't get around this simplistic (simple is sometimes good) point: if it's ok to vote FOR Obama because of his race, is it ok to vote for McCain because of his race? My answer to both is no.
W/M, 40's, liberal D:
Have to think about it and I am going crazy right now at work and am leaving on vacation tomorrow. in sum, I don’t see a black voting for ob because he is black as the same as I do if a white voting against ob because he is black. Double standard? Maybe? Do I give a shit? No