Warren: Quoting Shakespeare and ignoring blogs
Warren
St. Louis University political science professor Ken Warren says he remains disturbed over Gov. Matt Blunt’s assertion last week that Warren was wrongly accusing rural voters of being “racist” because most did not support Democrat Barack Obama, now the president-elect.
“I think that Gov. Blunt owes me an apology for making demogogical comments about what I said, for political gain,” Warren said. “He knows what I said isn’t what he said I said.”
But in the days since then, Warren said he’s ignored the various blogs that have ripped him, and he’s been focusing on his national exit-poll work and other duties.
“To quote Shakespeare, ‘It’s Much Ado About Nothing,’ ” Warren said today.
Warren maintains that he was not making any broad accusations about any voters who didn’t support Obama for president, in his post-election analysis, initially reported last week by The Beacon, an online publication.
Warren acknowledged that many voters had various reasons for preferring Republican John McCain.
“I said ’some people who voted for McCain are racist,’ but that’s a minor percentage,” Warren said.
His point, he continued, is that in such a close election in Missouri, the small percentage of voters who made decisions on racial grounds could make the difference.
Warren noted, for example, the latest pre-election poll in the Post-Dispatch, and earlier ones, had signaled that roughly a quarter of those polled believed that Obama’s biracial background would be an “important” or “very important” factor.
The polling comments came from whites and blacks. Warren noted that some African-Americans were voting for Obama primarily for his race, as well.
(At the same time, about two-thirds of those polled in Missouri said the nation was ready to elect an African-American as president. )
Our pollster, Del Ali, also said right before the election that, “In a close contest, at the last minute, race could be enough to deny Obama a victory” in Missouri.
“My exit poll showed the same thing as your poll,” Warren said. That poll showed that about 60 percent of the African-Americans polled said they would be a lot or somewhat more likely to vote for Obama because of his race, while about 53 percent of the white voters polled said they were less likely to vote for Obama because of his race.
Also backing Warren up was another local political-science professor, UMSL’s Dave Robertson, who wrote a similar analysis recently for The Beacon.
By the way, Warren has been in the midst of such a controversy before. After the city’s racially charged School Board race in 1991, Warren and his SLU colleague, the late George Wendel, touched off an unroar when they alleged vote fraud because of the huge African-American turnout (in the 90-plus percentage range).
Their assertions resulted in an Election Board investigation that resulted in a few African-American poll workers admitting they were casting ballots for relatives who weren’t showing up at the polls themselves.
I can’t help but notice that Ken Warren’s focus on “racism” focussed on white voters in a rural area, versus in the predominantly black areas where race was also a factor in the overall vote, so he only used one data set where two were available - and required - to make a “real” determination, instead of something that is great for getting publicity.
Mr. Warren, when attending a funeral, most people tend to remember the good things that occurred in the person’s life, and use the opportunity to come together. In this election, you failed to make statements that showed what progress was achieved, and while I am a Mc Cain supporter, I can see that most people were trying to use this election as a common ground place to come together, and don’t deny anyone of any race who believes the same. I contend that YOUR remarks were extremely insensitive, and that they were not only harmful to you and your reputation, but to Saint Louis University and your students. I am very suspicious of why you would have made such remarks, but I am pretty sure that they were for sundry reasons. Your categorizations are defeatist to the voters who waited hours to make their point known, be it for race, religious belief, or otherwise.
I guess it doesn’t really matter though, since Ken Warren swears that he is ignoring the blogs, instead of posting in them.
Mr Warren’s “crime” seems to be that he acknowledges that a small percentage of caucasian voters in the state had as their sole criterion for either not voting for Obama, or, voting for McCain, Obama’s race.
Heavens to betsy! Mentioning that racism exists and that some people may have made their voting choice based solely on race! Is this something to no longer be mentioned in Missouri society.
Mr Warren did not say that everyone who voted for McCain was a racist. However, it saounds to me that some are protesting overmuch the results of his polling. Perhaps there is some uneasiness their own life as to their attitudes toward race.
Watch out, you may find yourself saying that “good” black people are fine, but those “outside agitators” are not… Sigh.. At least Gov. George Wallace was honest about his racism, and even he recanted later in his life.
Boo hoo…poor Ken got his feelings hurt because someone might have falsely accused him of something…Matt Blunt had this situation every day of his four years in office as the media took every syllable of what he said and parsed it. If you are going to be a public figure Ken, grow some thicker skin…or if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Big Red Leader, it’s clear he wasn’t falsely accused, he did it. As someone else posted, he neglected the racism exhibited by African-Americans who voted for Obama not because he was qualified or the best candidate but merely because he was black. Racism pure and simple yet they are allowed to get away with it same as BigDdemocrat. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Yellowbelly RHarnack and Ken Warren must be drinking from the same soup bowl.
“Yadda-yadda-yadda … you don’t agree with me …
therefore you must be a racist.”
===