However, even there, we would have to be careful of other possibilities. For example, it is possible that black politicians who get elected are on average, actually better at their jobs than white politicians. Even comparing the approval rating among blacks versus whites wouldn’t capture this, because the reason for the disparity in both approval and performance could be that white people maintain higher standards for black politicians. If this were the case, approval rating among blacks would actually be the most accurate reflection of actual job performance.

I think there are a lot of interesting questions here, that ought to be studied (with a lot of uncertainty about jumping to conclusions). I don’t think that Mr. York has any good reason to leave African-Americans out from his analysis, but I don’t think anyone adequately provided the crucial data that would counteract his assumptions on the topic of presidential job approval.

Right, The York quote makes no sense unless you assume black voters are somehow not as “real” as white voters.

I don’t think this is necessarily racist. It probably has something to do with prototype theory or something.

If you doubt, just look at the percentage of blacks that think the economy is doing pretty well, which is wildly out of sync with the data.

Yes, exactly. I already stated that York’s conclusion is wrong because he didn’t test it right. In my view, he’s not racist but he’s still wrong, because the correct conclusion to draw from his article is that Dems in general get lopsided minority support, not Obama in particular.

I guess I still don’t see the racism. Calling someone a racist is pretty serious stuff, and I need more than ‘actually.’

I can see we’re talking past each other though.

I can’t help feel a growing distance between me and the blogs I used to read faithfully everyday, because this here ain’t doing it for me. Race is such a tough issue to write about and discuss, and it just seems libs seem waaay overconfident that they’re accurate navigators in such tough turf.

Ultimately though, I think the reason that we’re at loggerheads is because each is confident in our own presuppositions, the stuff that just isn’t there in the York’s article. ‘Actually’ can mean ‘minorities aren’t relevant,’ and it can also merely mean outliers can disproportionately affect mean. Which is it? I guess progs have jumped all over this as clear evidence as to the former.

Me? It seems like bad literature, reading into it too much. I kept rereading your last graf, trying to feel my way into your (Julian’s) viewpoint, but each time I could feel both views fitting.

It’s part of the liberal script to make such attributions to conservatives when there is a bit of gray in the overt text. I think they’re looking for it. Racism is the one area that libs can feel immediately to be their turf, where they are the default elect. Repubs are always on the defensive when it comes to race. Likewise for patriotism and being ‘tough on crime.’

Anyway, I guess we just differ.

Also, look, polls show that there’s about a 15 point gap between under-30 voters and seniors on Obama’s approval rating, and it’s even bigger on specific issues. Voters with incomes over $75k are a lot more critical of his handling of the economy with voters who make less than $30k—again, gaps in the 20s on numerous issues here. I’m betting you’d find it weird if I told you that high marks from young voters were making Obama seem more popular overall than he “actually” is, or that the disapproval of more affluent voters made his economic policy appear less popular than it “actually” is.

Assuming that York’s data and the additional data showing that this is a feature of minority voting related to Dems in general suggests that the real comparison would be the difference, if any, between black and non-black Dem supporty by black voters. Then you’d see how strong the disparity would be, and this would most likely directly attributable to some sort of black prejudice. (You’d still have to tease out other factors, though, such as Obama’s exceptional charisma.)

When Obama was winning 90% of black voters during the primaries in some areas, it was clear to me at least, that he was not a post-racial figure.

I just read the article and here’s my take: he lists many stats to show the overwhelming racial split on Obama’s performance. Not a dichotomy, mind you (where it’s one racial group hostile to the other) but just a statistically significant gap.

My attribution to this rather humdrum enumeration of numbers is perhaps a reflexive tentativeness on a pundit (esp a conservative one) when commenting on race. To make the rather prosaic point that blacks overwhelmingly see Obama as effective more than whites, he is beating this horse to death with slow, heavy blows. Maybe the better metaphor would be he’s trying to knock it out, because the column is, as you point out, a soporific.

I’ve gotten very wary of attributions, mind-reading. I know the lefties have immediately jumped to racism as his guiding, unconscious agenda. You point out his lack of curiosity. I see your point.

It’s just that attributions tends to reveal more the bias of the interpreter than the interpreted. Which is why I appreciate you trying to look at the rest of the article for supporting/non-supporting evidence of bias.

But my explanation of this is what I said above, that he’s being cautious and plodding in order to make an unassailable, tedious observation without being called a racist. Ironically, this casts him in racial suspicion.

I can’t claim to know York’s agenda, conscious or otherwise. I’d have to be more versed in his prior work to sniff out a real pattern of malevolence, and I’m not. This may inform your opinion.

But having read his article I didn’t see the evil that others did. It seems that York’s point is actually rather mundane. His ‘actually’ is actually pointing out the prosaic fact that one demographic subgroup is pulling up the overall perception of Obama’s net approval.

It’s not an earth-shattering insight, but it’s also not racism either. It’s merely a commonplace.

“…That’s in principle. In practice, as Dave notes, the upshot always seems to be that somehow minority votes shouldn’t factor into our assessment of what real Americans think. I hope I’m not overreading if I find York’s choice of words here rather telling.”

Far as I can tell, I think you’re overreading. I reread the thing and boy it sure is dull, I had to keep fighting the tendency to skim over it. Just not brimming with racial animus, to me. Just boring, repetitive.

I should point out that York makes a classic, common mistake and doesn’t compare his assertions to the opposite case, namely that other non-black Dems also receive high marks according to a coarse racial grouping.

This is my beef with pundits, their incredible innumeracy. Because he had a null hypothesis that he didn’t test correctly. I think this too is an obvious point and I won’t belabor it.

Having written all this as a mild defense of York’s good name,, I’m going to see what York’s response to lefty accusations are. See the bottom of his updated article.

That phrase is why. What is that supposed to mean?

His positions “appear more popular than they actually are “. . . when you remove the black people. What kind of stupid thing is that to say?

How do Republicans look when you remove the white people?