Romney will just counter with ads of ex-president Clinton saying he did nothing wrong at Bain.
I've seen articles for this, but I've also seen enough enough articles going the other way. Republicans energized by Obamacare and the economy will be swarming the booths while disappointed Democrats stay home. Both sides claim the future.Originally Posted by Supersport
1. Passed socialist healthcare law
2. Passed gun control law
3. Shipped jobs overseas
4. Invested in abortion-related business
5. Isn't a Protestant
If nothing else this drives home just how morally and intellectually bankrupt the GOP is these days. Likewise their base that will blindly vote for this guy just because he's . . . well, white. That likely the top issue among the 27% faithful this election cycle, let's face it. Fortunately that's the one area where he clearly differentiates himself from Obama.
Wow, now we are back to the old smear of anyone who wont vote for Obama must be a racist. That is such a pile of bullshit and I think even someone as morally bankrupt as you are Houngan knows it.
Honestly, I suspect the 27% will vote for Romney because he has an (R) after his name on the ballot, not because of race.
Race will likely play a role, but more as a driver of voter turnout.
No, just that it will be the biggest factor among the 27% that vote GOP no matter what. You could put up a goat god with a flaming phallus drinking the blood from a baby's neck as the candidate and still get 20+% of the vote, that's a hard fact. That they are ignorant and racist is perhaps a bit more anecdotal, but I cringe at the shit I have to listen to because they assume I'm "on board."
Like RH points out they're going to vote GOP regardless, but the justifications aren't exactly subtle this time around.
H.
You really think Obama doesn't get those votes because he is black, not because he was an inexperienced, young liberal who represented a political philosophy that they didn't like.
AH, and they hated Clinton because he was the first black president. I get it now.
Last edited by Scuzz; 07-02-2012 at 03:14 PM.
No the biggest factor for about 25-30% on either side is the letter after the persons name on the ballot. Has been that way for a long time. Do you think if Hillary or insert generic white male candidate running for office as a dem that any of those persons would be voting dem?
Also I know there was a sizable group of people who decided to come out and vote for Obama simply because he was black, nothing about what he stood for or any of that, simply because they wanted to see a black president. I find issues with that justification for voting as well.
I find it sad that there are red and blue states. Both sides of the aisle are just wacky with their voting sometimes. For 80% of the country, it doesn't matter what the candidates say, they will vote either (R) or (D). The test is if you can capture enough of the remaining 20% in the "battleground" states, and if you can convince your apathetic voter base to bother going to the polls.
Do I think anyone voted for McCain because Obama is black? I'm sure there were some that did. Would they have voted for a white democrat? Not a chance. And I surely don't think a blue state turned red just because Obama is black. The states where that plays the most are the states that are already firmly in the Republican pocket.
On a completely different tangent, I really wish the rest of the states would follow Nebraska's electoral model. They divide the state into regions that each have a electoral vote, and if a candidate wins that region they get that electorate. Nebraska has never gone "blue", but in 2008 Obama campaigned in the liberal Douglas/Sarpy area, which had an electoral vote, and managed to win it. Having that model spread across all 50 states would make each state a battleground and would allow the minority (whether (R) or (D)) to be heard to at least some degree.
I used to believe this, but now I am not so sure. This NY Time article tries to get a sense of how racist attitudes might have affected the 2008 vote:
The author figures Obama lost 3-5% of the vote due to negative racial bias and gained 1% due to positive racial bias. I think that's a little high, but even 1-2% can easily throw an election. I've heard enough ugly remarks about from my extended family, and I live in Canada, for Christ's sake.Once I figured out which parts of the country had the highest racially charged search rates, I could test whether Mr. Obama underperformed in these areas. I predicted how many votes Mr. Obama should have received based on how many votes John Kerry received in 2004 plus the average gain achieved by other 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates. The results were striking: The higher the racially charged search rate in an area, the worse Mr. Obama did.
Let me ask you this: I think we agree they're going to vote GOP, correct? Your point makes sense for the 2008 election, although considering Palin was on the other side I can't really see how anything north of a bonobo could vote for McCain.
But now we've had three years of the lowest taxes in modern times, wars executed ruthlessly, expansion of anti-immigrant action, Bin Laden killed, the stock market doubled, and government surveillance expanded. Obama is by any standard the most effective conservative president in modern history. But, and this is where you have to explain the rationale, the right is going to vote for a guy who passed a broader healthcare act, gun control, shipped jobs overseas, and belongs to a cult. How exactly am I supposed to gibe the enthusiasm against Obama on the right with anything based on policy? What characteristic of his, in actual fact, are they taking issue with?
H.
The one where he is a democrat and they are republicans. You really dont need to look any deeper then that. Party identification rules all for large numbers of people on both sides. And by what you said here why are liberals voting for 'the most effective conservative president in modern history'?
Good question, and a potential major problem for Obama, for that matter.
Bill Clinton did substantially better with white southerners than Kerry or Obama did. Is that because Clinton was a southerner, a southern white guy, or not black? I'm not sure of the answer.
Clinton was from the south and so was his VP. That had a lot to do with why he did better in the region they both came from.
That's one theory, there are others. I haven't seen a good unpacking of the relative factors. I suppose Kerry vs. Obama adjusted for the economy would be a decent proxy, but ideally you'd need a southern black candidate.
Same reason, the base votes the party no matter what. There will be a lot of nose-holding at the polls this time around, but in general the left tends to have a better grasp of what it finds distasteful. The right's anger at Obama is consistently at odds with simple reason "He's a tax and spend democrat!" when he's anything but.
I'll probably throw a 3rd party vote this time around simply because Kentucky is pure Red, might as well express some form of displeasure with the status quo.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote