Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2019, 06:27:13 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  a question to ponder....
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: a question to ponder....  (Read 7108 times)
Rob
Bob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,292
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2005, 07:12:25 pm »

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

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.

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.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2005, 07:26:29 pm »

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.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,903


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2005, 08:55:33 pm »

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?
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2005, 09:05:00 pm »

I rather think that Mr watts has voted for his son, a conservative Republican.
Logged
josh_24
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2005, 09:20:35 pm »

Not for a while. Mississippi will become Democratic in a few decades when it becomes black majority.
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'?
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.
Logged
Rob
Bob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,292
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2005, 09:22:42 pm »


Hilary can't win against a black woman. Period.

That's one of the few scenarios Hillary would win.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,286
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2005, 06:32:56 am »

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.
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).
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,081


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2005, 02:04:33 pm »

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

African Americans have been the Dems most loyal constituency for genertaions, but the Dems have yet to honor their loyalty by considering one for the national ticket, let alone actually nominating an African American to the national ticket. It's time the Dems put their money where their mouth is, instead of giving lip service every four years.

African Americans need reparations a lot more than they need a token national candidate. 
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2005, 11:16:21 pm »

Reparations!  You'e joking, right?
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,286
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2005, 05:10:30 am »

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.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2005, 07:34:20 am »

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.
Logged
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,097
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2005, 10:35:21 am »

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.
Logged
nick
nickshepDEM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,921


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2005, 11:39:28 am »

Not for a while. Mississippi will become Democratic in a few decades when it becomes black majority.
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'?
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.

Your crazy if you believe Rice would get anywhere near 50% of the African American vote.  I cant see her breaking 20%.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2005, 11:53:34 am »

Not for a while. Mississippi will become Democratic in a few decades when it becomes black majority.
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'?
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.

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?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,649
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2005, 12:23:14 pm »

As goes Maine, so goes Vermont.

1968

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".
Logged
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,743
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2005, 05:41:14 pm »

As goes Maine, so goes Vermont.

1968

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).
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,811
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2005, 05:50:52 pm »

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.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2005, 07:05:32 pm »

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.
Logged
Rob
Bob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,292
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2005, 07:11:57 pm »



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.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2005, 07:16:43 pm »

maybe, but the Dems have token blacks in token positions of power.  There is a difference.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2005, 07:25:44 pm »

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!
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,286
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 25, 2005, 06:12:09 am »

maybe, but the Dems have token blacks in token positions of power. There is a difference.
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.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2005, 10:37:14 am »

maybe, but the Dems have token blacks in token positions of power. There is a difference.
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.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,272
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2005, 10:56:47 am »

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.
Logged
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,097
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2005, 10:57:21 am »

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.

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".
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC