General Election GDT 11/04/2008

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think it's worth reiterating that race played a very, very small role--if it played any at all--in this electoral outcome.

Agreed 100%. But I'm pointing out that statistically, race played a very large role in the minds of some individual voters.

If 53% of Americans voted for Obama, and 92% of blacks voted for Obama, then you have to ask, did some large quantitiy of black individuals comprising that 39% difference make their decision based primarily on race?

Civil rights reform is over - neither party is currently offering any policy that is explicitly to the benefit of any particular race of people.

It's just a valid question that has to be asked. It may mean that we do still have an unhealthy preoccupation with race in this country, but that it disproportionately could be assigned to blacks. This is what Murph was getting at, and your argument proves it - since a skillion white people voted for Obama. Whites didn't go 92% for the white guy.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why does this make it a sad day for you? You think the incumbent party should be given another crack at it? Your logic isn't reaching me here. The current president is incompetent, you say, but it is a sad thing that the people choose the other party this time round?

How long would you be happy to see the incompetence keep going?

I don't believe that McCain and Bush are one and the same... not at all. I don't believe McCain to be a man of incompetence in the least.. Honestly, I believe we're following up one incompetent president with another incompetent president. I'm actually able to look beyond party affiliations and judge a person's worthiness for the position. Are you? Perhaps. Am I right about McCain and Obama? We'll never know about McCain.. We'll have to see about Obama.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think it's worth reiterating that race played a very, very small role--if it played any at all--in this electoral outcome.

How will we ever know if what you're saying is true? Unfortunately, there truly is no way of knowing what role race played in election. Personally, I believe that Bush played a larger role in this election race. But, we'll never know exactly how large or small of an impact race had on this election.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

We can't have people in this country identifying with a political party primarily due to the continent of their ancestry, no matter what continent or party it is. That's exactly the type of stuff we've been trying to fix for 200 years.

Of course we can. How do you think politics is played, and has always been played? You chase the blocs that will vote for you. If Republicans wanted the black vote, they would try for it. It's no different from the anti-abortion vote, which I suspect is at least as large.

In fact, it's probably going to be a huge electoral factor for the rest of our lifetimes in regards to who wins the Hispanic vote. You can sit back and sip cognac and say that it shouldn't matter...and you will lose your ass. Let's get real here.

Why do blacks vote Democrat at such a huge clip? I would suggest that it has FAR less to do with blacks than it has to do with Republicans.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

you are still buying into the lie that McCain is Bush, and buying into the falsehood that any change is good change.
edit: after rereading, I guess it's more accurate to say, "you are still trying to sell the lie . . . "

yep.. it was just a campaign bit by the Democrats.. one that they had to play, but that's all it was... just a bit.

[MissNU]

Progress and change is here! I know you Texans like your republicans but we didn't need your state to win. Before you get all huffy-puffy on the Texas thing I will admit I'm from Ohio (they even joke about us on the simpsons!). This year Ohio changed things and made a difference. I just hope that everyone will be as gracious as McCain was in his concession speach, accept defeat and unite to form a better America.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by MissNU

Progress and change is here! I know you Texans like your republicans but we didn't need your state to win. Before you get all huffy-puffy on the Texas thing I will admit I'm from Ohio (they even joke about us on the simpsons!). This year Ohio changed things and made a difference. I just hope that everyone will be as gracious as McCain was in his concession speach, accept defeat and unite to form a better America.

Wow, sounds like someone put some pom-pom's in your hand and shoved some rays of sunshine up your butt. I think anyone.. republican or democrat would find you annoying.

[rabbitproof]

These numbers are not based in reality.

Democrats always get more black votes.
It's the first black candidate ever! Are you really brushing that aside as if they have different hairstyles?

I also would like to look at states where the ethnicity is really white. I suspect the white vote there went more strongly for the white guy than the average. What does that mean to you?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Civil rights reform is over - neither party is currently offering any policy that is explicitly to the benefit of any particular race of people.

EXACTLY. That's what I'm talking about. So why are blacks voting Democrat at such a huge clip? Because Republicans are doing a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE job at playing politics.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course we can. How do you think politics is played, and has always been played? You chase the blocs that will vote for you. If Republicans wanted the black vote, they would try for it. It's no different from the anti-abortion vote, which I suspect is at least as large.

In fact, it's probably going to be a huge electoral factor for the rest of our lifetimes in regards to who wins the Hispanic vote. You can sit back and sip cognac and say that it shouldn't matter...and you will lose your ass. Let's get real here.

Why do blacks vote Democrat at such a huge clip? I would suggest that it has FAR less to do with blacks than it has to do with Republicans.

You're missing my point. Why do non-white people vote as blocs based on race? White people vote as blocs on more granular (AND more meaningful) criteria than skin color. REMEMBER! The whole deal here is that race doesn't matter! We're all colorblind..

It's inherently racist to assume that an ethnicity will vote as a bloc, because you're saying they're "all the same," at least to the degree that they can be statistically categorized as a voting bloc by regularly voting in overwhelming majorities for a particular party.

If white people voted as a bloc, we would hear a constant drone about how horribly racist this country is.

Meanwhile, 28% of the country (13% black, 15% Hispanic) is talked about, almost as if they can't hear us, like they're two big nameless, faceless monoliths. It's marginalizing.

And for these people - at the individual level - to jump in head first with this strategy, so much so that blacks, a huge population of richly different individuals, vote 92% for one party, MIGHT say that they're still servants. In a sad, twisted way, servants to a political party rather than a falsely superior white race.

And your insinuation that they could easily be had by either party just backs up this assumption - they're just a bloc of nobodies, there to be had.

As individuals, blacks and Hispanics need to get out ahead of this, because it does them each a disservice. I think.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course we can. How do you think politics is played, and has always been played? You chase the blocs that will vote for you. If Republicans wanted the black vote, they would try for it. It's no different from the anti-abortion vote, which I suspect is at least as large.

In fact, it's probably going to be a huge electoral factor for the rest of our lifetimes in regards to who wins the Hispanic vote. You can sit back and sip cognac and say that it shouldn't matter...and you will lose your ass. Let's get real here.

Why do blacks vote Democrat at such a huge clip? I would suggest that it has FAR less to do with blacks than it has to do with Republicans.

I think he's saying that it unfortunate..that we should be passed that. To me, abortion is still an issue when it comes to comparing two candidates. Race is not.

Unfortunately, in society, race is... just saying that it would be great to progress past that point.

And yeah, as an American, I must say that this election cycle has been a huge embarrassment to our country. I am embarrassed by the racists that came out and supported both candidates. I am embarrassed by those that voted primarily because of race. I am embarrassed by the John Wiley Prices and the Jesse Jacksons of our country.. and the skinheads and the KKK.

Basically, it makes the US look about as dumb as the city of Dallas looks on a daily basis when it comes to politics.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Basically, it makes the US look about as dumb as the city of Dallas looks on a daily basis when it comes to politics.

DISD FTL?

[Murphy3]

DISD.. City of Dallas... all of the above.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

DISD.. City of Dallas... all of the above.

You didn't like Laura Miller and her supreme parade-planning abilities?

[Murphy3]

Just get Norm Hitzges going off on a City of Dallas rant...

[FINtastic]

Heck I enjoy a Norm rant, no matter the topic.

But I do recall hearing some HSO's on the City of Dallas over the years, especially with regards to the Cowboys stadium.

[Rhylan]

I just want to start seeing some exit polls about...

Black men
Black married women
Hispanic catholics
Black small business owners
Hispanic single men

Whatever.

Give me something that's not just a race label.

[Flacolaco]

OBAMA: 50,937,491
MCCAIN: 47,144,053

I realize that 51-48 is miles in a political race, but when I look at those numbers....I still see a nation that is for the most part divided, no?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

You're missing my point. Why do non-white people vote as blocs based on race? White people vote as blocs on more granular (AND more meaningful) criteria than skin color. REMEMBER! The whole deal here is that race doesn't matter! We're all colorblind..

It's inherently racist to assume that an ethnicity will vote as a bloc, because you're saying they're "all the same," at least to the degree that they can be statistically categorized as a voting bloc by regularly voting in overwhelming majorities for a particular party.

If white people voted as a bloc, we would hear a constant drone about how horribly racist this country is.

Meanwhile, 28% of the country (13% black, 15% Hispanic) is talked about, almost as if they can't hear us, like they're two big nameless, faceless monoliths. It's marginalizing.

And for these people - at the individual level - to jump in head first with this strategy, so much so that blacks, a huge population of richly different individuals, vote 92% for one party, MIGHT say that they're still servants. In a sad, twisted way, servants to a political party rather than a falsely superior white race.

And your insinuation that they could easily be had by either party just backs up this assumption - they're just a bloc of nobodies, there to be had.

As individuals, blacks and Hispanics need to get out ahead of this, because it does them each a disservice. I think.

I disagree that it is "racist" for minorities to vote as a bloc. "Racist" implies a superiority of one race over another. That is really neither here nor there when it comes to voting. It's not like we are trying to elect a candidate who will discriminate against a given race.

Whites of course do not vote as a bloc, given that said "bloc" would constitute about 70% of the electorate and be for all purposes meaningless.

Minorities, on the other hand, do tend to vote in overwhelming margins for the candidates they perceive as most friendly to their interests. This doesn't make them a bloc to be had, as you suggested. It makes them a voice to be heard.

I'm having a hard time following you here. You seem to be suggesting that minorities would do themselves a service by diluting their voice. That doesn't make any sense at all.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

OBAMA: 50,937,491
MCCAIN: 47,144,053

I realize that 51-48 is miles in a political race, but when I look at those numbers....I still see a nation that is for the most part divided, no?

I have to say, I think it's a little bit of a surprise that a <4% difference in a popular vote could register as a 200 point difference in the electoral college (although maybe that margin in the popular vote increases as more votes are tallied throughout the night).

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

OBAMA: 50,937,491
MCCAIN: 47,144,053

I realize that 51-48 is miles in a political race, but when I look at those numbers....I still see a nation that is for the most part divided, no?

"divided" is a pretty loaded term. Split on opinion is one thing - deranged in opposition is another.
Right now, all we know is that there seems to be a pretty even split in opinion. We'll find out about derangement over the next few years.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I disagree that it is "racist" for minorities to vote as a bloc. "Racist" implies a superiority of one race over another. That is really neither here nor there when it comes to voting. It's not like we are trying to elect a candidate who will discriminate against a given race.

Whites of course do not vote as a bloc, given that said "bloc" would constitute about 70% of the electorate and be for all purposes meaningless.

Minorities, on the other hand, do tend to vote in overwhelming margins for the candidates they perceive as most friendly to their interests. This doesn't make them a bloc to be had, as you suggested. It makes them a voice to be heard.

I'm having a hard time following you here. You seem to be suggesting that minorities would do themselves a service by diluting their voice. That doesn't make any sense at all.

You're doing minorities a disservice by assuming that they should always speak as a single voice based solely on the race they belong to.

That's what racism is. Using race - an involuntary characteristic that isn't supposed to be an indicator of most things about a person - as an indicator of most things about a person.

Now do you get it? I know this is totally out of left field, a brand of logic so simple and clear that most people just can't comprehend it.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It's not like we are trying to elect a candidate who will discriminate against a given race.
.

we'll see what he does (and the congress does) on affirmative action.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

You're doing minorities a disservice by assuming that they should always speak as a single voice based solely on the race they belong to.

That's what racism is. Using race - an involuntary characteristic that isn't supposed to be an indicator of most things about a person - as an indicator of most things about a person.

Now do you get it? I know this is totally out of left field, a brand of logic so simple and clear that most people just can't comprehend it.

To agree with you would be to reveal an extraordinary lack of political knowledge. What are you doing here, fallng on your ideological sword?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

we'll see what he does (and the congress does) on affirmative action.

I'm here to tell you...Obama doesn't like black people any more than you like black people.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

To agree with you would be to reveal an extraordinary lack of political knowledge. What are you doing here, fallng on your ideological sword?

I'm not challenging you about your observation of what IS. I freaking said I agreed with you earlier. I swear.

What I'm saying is that if 92% of a particular race vote for one party, some non-negligible portion of those people may have a preoccupation with race that is contrary to the equality drumbeat that we've all been raised to walk to.

I want to challenge this. It shouldn't be the status quo to just assume all black people vote as a bloc. That's insulting to black people. I want someone to ask, black folks, what is it about blackness that makes you so different from whites that 92% of you vote the same? Why are you willing to be consistently categorized by both major political parties based solely on the color of your skin? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what everyone wants?

I don't expect you to get it. It's late. What I'm doing is actually thinking out loud and asking questions that don't really have an answer but deserve to be discussed. You can't take anything beyond the level of just trying to re-state how right you are about something obvious, because that's been your bit on this board since Nash left.

[Flacolaco]

Is California going to pass prop 8?????

This probably won't be sorted out until tomorrow some time, but that would be a pretty remarkable event. It's close, as of now.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm here to tell you...Obama doesn't like black people any more than you like black people.

well, first of all, you believe a lot of lies, so I really can't value that claim of yours very much at all.

second, your criterion had nothing to do with liking. It was "discriminate against a given race," and I think affirmative action would fit.

[Underdog]

How 'bout them Mavericks???


(um, no pun intended...)

[chumdawg]

I'm not talking about racism, bro. And I'm not talking about Nash, either. I'm talking about politics. You said yourself earlier--and I wholeheartedly agree--that neither party has done more for blacks over the last couple decades than the other has. I'm trying to figure out why the Dems have done such a better job of getting their vote than the Reps have.

I don't mind the way they vote, any more than I would mind pro-lifers voting Republicans. People vote certain ways for certain reasons. But no reason is any less legitimate than the other. As they say, you can vote however you like.

So why have Republicans done so piss-poor in getting black votes? Why have they so underperformed in this demographic in such huge margins? What is it about the Republican party that causes it to underperform in this demographic FAR worse than they perform in any other demographic we know?

You would seem to look at the numbers and ask why blacks vote Dem the way they do. I look at the numbers and ask why blacks avoid the Republican party like they do.

In political terms--not "racist" terms--they are equally valid questions.

[Kirobaito]

OK, I cried. I couldn't help it.

John McCain is a better person than the campaign he was forced to run. I think that that underscores just how screwed up the Republican Party is right now.

Barack Obama ran the best campaign in the history of the world. McCain, or perhaps his handlers, ran one of the worst.

I'm happy to see that the Republicans did not fall below 40 seats in the Senate. Being filibuster-proof would implement too much progressive legislation, too quickly, and would do more harm than good.

BUT... the Republicans sure as hell better get their act together in the next two years if they want to prevent losing their status as a national party. I hope that they will.

Best of luck to President Obama. You have been given a mission, and I trust that you will use your judgment and intelligence to make the best decisions for the entire country, not just your supporters now.

It is a wonderful day to be an American.

[Usually Lurkin]

This guy is one of my favorite authors, and I disagree with him a lot(!) on political issues. I'm posting this here for alexamenos, cause it maybe reflects (from somewhere closer to the republican party, possibly) seomthing alexamenos has been on about around here.

Sour Loser [John Derbyshire]

Just watched Wonder Boy’s speech. Hmph. “Callused hands?” When did he ever have callused hands?

All right, I'm sour. The most liberal member of the U.S. Senate! And that shakedown-artist of a wife, with the permanent frown! And Joe Biden! …

I'm sour about the GOP too. What did it all get us, those 8 years of pandering and spending? If GWB had turned his face against new entitlements, closed the borders, deported the illegals, held the line on calls to loosen mortgage-lending standards, starved the Department of Education, and declined those invitations to mosque functions, would the GOP be in any worse shape now?

What won this election was the packaging skills of David Axelrod, the swooning complicity of the media, the ruthless opportunism of Barack Obama, and the unprincipled thuggishness of his supporters.

What lost this election was the cloth-eared cluelessness of George W. Bush, the timid squeamishness of John McCain, and the deep lack of interest in conservative principles among Republican primary voters.

Sour? You bet I’m sour. Where was conservatism in this election? Where was restraint in government? Where was national sovereignty? Where was liberty? Where was self-support? And where are those things now? Where are they headed this next four years? Down the toilet, that’s where. Pah!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...QwOWUzODBlZTc=

[chumdawg]

Where was conservatism?

Good question!

I reckon we haven't seen it in going on 20 years now. At the presidential level, I mean.

Why are we still clinging to the idea that the difference between the Reps and Dems is conservatives and liberals? It most certainly is not, at the presidential level.

[kappasigma]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Saddly we ignored the Demos, the Media and well, we are paying for it now!!!

I refuse to ignore this stuff ever again and I will stand up and voice my opinions. It is time to rally the citizens and prepare for the mid-terms in 2010!!! and then again for a new hope in 2012!!!

The Dems counted on us ignoring them and now ... it just makes my blood boil!!!

YA, WAY TO BE AMERICAN! Why don't we just kill all the democrats? I mean, wtf, they're not americans!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Where was conservatism?

Good question!

I reckon we haven't seen it in going on 20 years now. At the presidential level, I mean.

Why are we still clinging to the idea that the difference between the Reps and Dems is conservatives and liberals? It most certainly is not, at the presidential level.

probably for the same reason you had to keep qualifying things here with "at the presidential level."
but there's a bunch of other "conservatism" other than fiscal that Bush did bring to the whitehouse that Derbyshire doesn't buy into. A lot of America does buy into the social conservatism, but McCain didn't push on those aspects of conservatism, either.

[chumdawg]

FiveThirtyEight just called IN for Obama. NC is close, and I mean very close. MO is tighter than tick pussy.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

probably for the same reason you had to keep qualifying things here with "at the presidential level."
but there's a bunch of other "conservatism" other than fiscal that Bush did bring to the whitehouse that Derbyshire doesn't buy into. A lot of America does buy into the social conservatism, but McCain didn't push on those aspects of conservatism, either.

Well, that's okay. Tonight we are talking about the presidential level.

I don't understand what "Derbyshire" means, but I think I can still comment. I don't think that a plurality of Americans believe in the brand of "social conservatism" that the Republicans presently offer. In fact, I think that's a significant reason why they lost today.

And as for the question of whether McCanin pushed them or not, look to the VP choice. She's the most "socially conservative" candidate we have ever seen on a major ticket.

Republicans thrive when fiscal conservatives go their way, perhaps despite the unsavory social views. When Republicans don't have fiscal conservatism going for them, the majority of folks don't have much reason to vote for them. God and guns and gays is only going to get you so far.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

McCain made a great speech tonight. It was ashame they did not let him be himself. Great race Obama ran and what a great president he will be.

Agreed. It reminded me of Kerry's speech in 2004 where it was only after the fact that they were more of themselves. Mccain finally sounded like the old Mccain again. He should have shown that sooner instead of just spouting a bunch of party rhetoric that you could tell from day 1 he didn't believe in.

MCNBC and FoX calling Indiana for Obama is probably the most shocking thing of the night/morning.

[chumdawg]

It looks like IN and NC may go to Obama. Unbelievable. Certainly a generational shift at play.

[chumdawg]

Nate Silver reporting that Obama has won Omaha.

He may be wrong, though.