Talk Elections

im curious....

name one (serious) potential republican nominee that could carry vermont?

name one (serious) potential democrat nominee that could carry mississippi?

the question excludes the possibility of serious scandals or something of that sort.

There are none.  Maybe Romney could carry Vermont, maybe not.  But the states are highly polarized.

none

Olympia Snowe. Vermont likes strong, independent-minded politicians just as much as Maine does.

As goes Maine, so goes Vermont.

1968

Bredesen might carry Mississippi against a liberal northern Republican like Giuliani, but it would be close.

That's ridiculous. Vermont went Kerry by 20; Maine went him by 9.

2 Words:  Ed Muskie.

Yes, but that was against George Bush. The candidates can change the numbers - and I think they will.

Not for a while.

Mississippi will become Democratic in a few decades when it becomes black majority.

Except the black proportion of the population isn't rising. Oops.

Isn't that rather presumptuous? Where is it written than blacks must and will vote Democrat? The Democrats continue to push a policy that says that blacks need a helping hand to succeed (affirmative action), continue to feel entitled to black support at elections; by contrast, the Repulbicans continue to push individualism, diversity and personal responsibility. What exactly is it that gives the other party such arrogance - I was about to say confidence - that "black" equates to "democrat'?

Well, the exit polls have proven conclusively that blacks are almost all Democrats, regardless of how you feel about ideology. The GOP  once had a lock on black votes, but lost them through ignoring their needs. Will the same thing happen to the Democrats? Unlikely, but you never know.

"A black man voting for the Republicans makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” - JC Watts Sr.

You might be surprised to know that technically there are more Republicans than Democrats in Vermont and more Democrats than Republicans in Mississippi--as of 2002.
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/196.pdf

That's a wonderful quote!

If the Democrats move in a anti-religous, softie way, they could lose the black vote. Blacks are strongly against gay marriage, and from what I can tell, they strongly resent liberals telling people how to raise their kids, such as no spanking and stuff.

It seems to me that the GOP program appeals to blacks as people and individuals; the other party treats them as a demographic. Which approach would you find more appealing?

It's just a thought, I don't mean to sound belligerent; what exactly is it that Democrats and their platform offer a voter who happens to be black? Where does this unshakable faith in that Colonel Sanders quote come from?

Unless there is a re-alignment, Vermont will probably be the 46th-48th state that would likely go to a landslide winning GOP candidate. I'd say it's more likely Vermont would go to the Republicans than Mississippi would go to the Democrats, though. My personal belief is that the rate of Republican voters is growing at a rate greater than that of Democrats.


Take away welfare and subsidies to states and I bet Mississippi or even Alabama could quite possibly go to the Democrats. Mississippi is the poorest state in the nation---it has the lowest per capita income of any state in the union. It's pretty dry down there with jobs and oppurtunity being limited the way they are. Still, I don't see a whole lot changing any time soon.

The thing is, Mississippians and Alabamians don't vote on economics; they vote on social issues. Whites regard welfare as a giveway to blacks, anyway.

well weve been through this many times on this board....

it wasnt a republican standing in the schoolhouse door in alabama.  it wasnt a republican who defied orders to let blacks in little rock central high school.  it wasnt a republican who wouldnt let james merideth into the university of mississippi (by the way, merideth is a republican now)  it wasnt the republicans who filibustered the civil rights bill of 1964.

saying that *all* blacks should vote for one political party over another is just as ignorant as saying all blacks should like watermelon.

Perhaps in an (unlikely) election match up between Governor Kathleen Blanco (D-LA) and Governor Jim Douglas (R-VT), both candidates could have a shot.

Blanco is a conservative Democrat, and from a state neighboring MS.  Given the choice between her and Douglas, MS could possibly tilt to the Dems.  As for Vermont, they might pick their own governor over the conservative Democrat.

At national level anyway. There are a load of counties in Alabama that are solidly Democratic in pretty much every state election but where Kerry got trashed (he couldn't even crack 30% in one).

Actually, it was. Republicans and Southern Democrats. Except the Republicans later changed their minds, which is how the bill passed.

Those Democrats are all Republicans now... just ask Trent Lott. I agree with your second statement, but right now, blacks' interests are better served by the Democrats.

I seem to recall the Al Gore (Sr) was one of the Democrat Senators that was fillibustering the Civil Rights Act.   I don't believe that the fillibuster had a single GOP member.  In fact, on a percentage basis, more GOP senators voted for the CRA than did Dems.

True, but that was a generation ago when the Dems held the South and the GOP held the Neast. It has very little to do with today's Repub or Dem parties. This issue and the 1968 election realigned the nation. On economics the parties may be similar, but on social issues, the parties have switched places.

I think Mr. Watts said that more recently than the 1960s. Am I wrong? A date for the quote anyone?

I rather think that Mr watts has voted for his son, a conservative Republican.

That's the point. democrats are bound and determined to wipe their party out. abortion kills potential demo-voters, while affirmative action educates blacks (even if it is in a liberal brainwash situation) and they will soon remove the symbolic leash from around their necks, and take off the blindfold. its already happening. Even though 3% may not seem like much, Bush gained that many (~300,000) blacks from the 2000 election to the 2004 election.If Condoleezza Rice is nominated, and there is no black woman as the Democrat's nominee; the divide could stretch all the way to 50/50. it is possible. 39% (~3,900,000) change in votes would be a major blow to their party. even a 10% change is very significant. If Condi is our nominee, she will pick up about 20-50% of the Black vote. That is why we need Condi to run. Hilary can't win against a black woman. Period.

That's one of the few scenarios Hillary would win.

No, it's more complicated.
You gotta differentiate between those who actively filibustered (which did NOT include Al Gore sr, though it did include a majority of the Senators from the confederacy, and did not include any Republicans) ,those who voted to prevent cloture and later voted against the Act (which included Al Gore sr and every other Southern Senator including the single Republican, and a large number of Republicans) and those who voted to prevent cloture at first but later changed their minds after a couple of provisions were taken out, and then voted for the Act (which, together with those who remained opposed, include the majority of the Republican party in the Senate, including the minority leader Everett Dirksen).

African Americans need reparations a lot more than they need a token national candidate. 

Reparations!  You'e joking, right?

It's too late for that now...not paying compensations in land in 1865 (as only the most radical Republicans demanded) was one of the worst errors ever made by a US Government though.

More than 620,000 American soldiers (North and South) were killed during the Civil war.  Nearly a million more were wounded.  Reparations have already been paid--in blood.

The best way to give reparations would simply be to try a bunch of old Klansmen for murders they committed during the civil rights era and before.

Notre Dame rules, by saying Condi would win up to 50% of the black vote, you are severly undermining their intelligence, saying they would vote for someone who happens to be black over someone they agree with.

Your crazy if you believe Rice would get anywhere near 50% of the African American vote.  I cant see her breaking 20%.

Um, wouldn't the reverse be true then, too? By favoring illegalized abortion and opposing affirmative action, Republicans are hurting themselves politically as well?

I don't agree with that, but that would seem to be the corollary to your logic. If the Democrats are stupid for advocating positions that hurt them, and the Republicans take the opposite positions, then aren't they doing the same thing to themselves, too?

Acctually, that quote comes from 1936.  Maine had early voting (sometime in October, I think) so it was always used as an indicator of where the country was headed.  It was once said "As Maine goes, so goes the country".  In 1936, people thought that FDR was a sure loser, because he lost in Maine.  However, on election day, only Vermont followed the trend.  Political analysists quiped "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont".

He was pointing out that 1968 bucked the trend (Maine voted for Humphrey, while Vermont voted for Nixon--which, as I pointed out, was probably almost entirely due to the fact that Ed Muskie of Maine was #2 on the Democratic ticket).

Vermont and Maine have voted together on all but two occasions since the creation of the Republican party--1912 (which was just weird) and 1968 (Muskie factor).  Before 1856, they had a generallly split record, voting together only in 1840 (Harrison landslide), 1824/1828 (Adams' landslides in New England), and 1820 (Monroe super-landslide).

FDR also lost Maine in 1932, so I don't know why in the world anyone would assume he was going to lose this time just because Maine went GOP again.

Akno,

I don't think that Condi would get 50% of the vote.  However, I do think that she would get a very large percentage of the vote, possibly as hig as 30%.  Were she only to get 20%, the result is the same--Dems lose.

The Dems have gained a loyal following among black Americans by keeping them dependent on government handouts.  As the black middle class continues to expand, the grip that the Dems hold over African-Americans will loosen. 

Keep in mind, Democrats cannot win without the near total fealty of black voters, whereas Republicans have shown they can win with minimal support from blacks.

It is indeed ironic that it is GOP administrations that promote blacks to positions of great power, while their friends in the Democrat Party pay them just enough lip service to keep them on the plantation.

The GOP has to have token blacks in positions of power to deflect accusations of racism.

maybe, but the Dems have token blacks in token positions of power.  There is a difference.

kso,

Very true.  The American people saw right thru Mondales lame attempt to woo women voters by picking Ferraro as his running mate.  It was clear to all that it was merely a calculated move to win votes, not a serious pick for Veep.

If you recall, it was the MSM that lauded Bush's pick of Cheney, in an effort to give him 'gravitas.' 

For years later, Kerry picks Edwards in an effort to have 'great hair.'  Jeez!

IIRC there's quite a number of ranking minority members in the House who are Black. Should they ever regain the House (yeah, yeah...as if...) that's some real power there.

Not really. The DNC first of all didn't put them there, and even if you give the Democrats credit, their actual party organization has virtually no black influence whatsoever. There's Donna Brazile but a lot of the establishment doesn't even like her, no matter what results she produces.

I oppose Affirmative Action in practice and politics, so I'm not going to tell Republicans to pick blacks or run black candidates just for the sake of doing so.

Condi would get no higher percentage of the black vote than any other Republican.

It's been proven in the past: the Republicans running a black candidate does not get them any higher percentage of the black vote.

P.S. Kerry would've still won my state without a single black vote.

True, but keep in mind that, in most cases, for every group gained, there is another one lost. Against a moderate, red-state Democrat, Condi would lose a lot of the white male vote that is neccessary for a Republican to win.

The success of Condi's candidacy is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. If that goes down the drain, so does she, since that is her main "accomplishment". She won't be able to weasle out of questions like she can during hearings. The novelty of being black and female would wear off quite quickly, kinda like John Edwards being southern and "attractive".

Condi's biggest weakness is she has never held elective office. If she wasn't black or a womahn, no one would've thrown her name out at all. She's a gimmick candidate, but I really doubt she'll run.

Plus, shes uncharismatic and broing as hell.  I cant watch her speak for anymore than 2-3 minutes at a time.

But he would have lost PA, WI, MI, IL, MD, NJ, DE

Not at all, why would I be?  But I agree with Lewis Trondheim that 1865 would've been the best time.  I would have indentured Southern Whites for 20-40 years in servitude to Blacks. 

Since we failed to do that, giving each black person say $100-200K or so over time, taxed away from the top 5% of the economic heirarchy, would be a good idea.  That should be in addition to the generous welfare state that should be implemented for all poor americans.

hey opebo, im a white southerner, and guess what i never owned any damn slaves.  why should i pay *NON-SLAVES* one cent?

i dont owe them anything.

Hey opebo, you are a white southerner from a border state.

Enjoy your 20-40 years in servitude to blacks.

and opebo you really need to get over your continual bashing of white southerners.

most of my family comes from a rather meager background.  they werent oppressing anyone, they didnt have the ability to do so even if they wanted to.

i dont know much about your background  you do, however, always throw up the fact that you come from a lot of money.  it is more probable that your family oppressed poor folks and minorities more than my family ever did.

get over yourself and this ridiculous bashing of white southerners.

Opebo,

I had five ancestors killed in the Civil War--3 Confederates and 2 Unionists.  @ more of my Confederate ancestors were wounded, and all of them lost their farms due to taxes during the Reconstruction.

While the 40 acres and a mule may not have gone to a freed slave, it didn't stay in the family either.  My family, from both sides of the Mason-Dixon, HAS paid reparations, and I sure as hell won't pay any more.