Will Racism Enter the 2012 Election?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Racism will play in every election, atleast for a long while to come. I don't think it's a just a matter of the skin colour of the candidate, it's also about which party holds best interests for one singal racial group. 91% of blacks voted for Carter in the 1976 elections, 52% of blacks had supported Hillary Clinton in 2007 before she came into the primaries, Bill Clinton carried 86% of the black vote during his elections. It is about interests, and it's not just the blacks.

True. But I don't think that the Dems have black interests in mind at all. To them, blacks are merely a ticket to the WH. Problem is, many blacks still succumb to the class warfare trumpet call.

Outside of race, 80% of gays went democratic in 2008 (although they seem to be leaning republican as of late). It is about what defines a party, what they promote.

Now that I can understand, since liberals side with their goals (mariage, etc)

Cain's skin colour won't automatically make it a challange for Obama to court the black vote, because if you think this, you're just guilty as the black voters you accuse of being biased and generalizing in their way of thinking.

My question was actually, will being black cost Cain votes from whites, given how Obama turned out to be such a disaster. Think of it in terms of Donovan McNabb.

Do I think if Cain were to win the Republican nomination he'd make a difference to the black vote? No. I think he may manage to gain a piece of the vote, possibly ending up with 84% to Obama, 13% to Cain (1% other) which will not be all that significant. In the end blacks see Cain as just another republican suit and that's that. Alot of blacks tend to get harassed by other blacks for voting Republican as well, which I think is rather low and pathetic, even if some blacks may have reasons for their harassment. The 'R' still doesn't go well with the black community. Many blacks still remember that day when Goldwater defended racial segregation as a decision for the states. Many of the older blacks still do remind their children and grandchildren of what they went through.

Good points, but I think Cain may never win the nomination. All things being equal, he will lose because of his skin color before he gets to the final test.

Is there a person called Abel running? If so, I would go with him or her.

I don't like what I have heard about Cain.

This has nothing to do with colour.

And I am not American, but here is something I have noticed throughout my life - names matter. And I have always said that Obama is too close to Osama, spelling-wise.

Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by mishigas
My question was actually, will being black cost Cain votes from whites, given how Obama turned out to be such a disaster. Think of it in terms of Donovan McNabb.

That's a very odd question, really. You're basically asking, "Since they're both black, will people think Cain and Obama are the same?"

I think Cain being nuts is more likely to cost him votes. In Republican primaries, there's always going to be the Kleagle Kamp busting their hoods for a whiter, more Aryan nation, but I don't think that faction will get a serious bump. At least, not consciously (there may be people who just subconsciously think a white candidate is a "more serious" candidate, for instance, who aren't actually "racist" - bias and racism are different things, after all)

Good points, but I think Cain may never win the nomination. All things being equal, he will lose because of his skin color before he gets to the final test.

Maybe so. But remember there's also the "Uncle Ruckus" factor (or the "Bill Cosby factor" if you prefer) to contend with. What this is, is when a member of a race confirms someone else's racist opinions regarding that race, thereby absolving the racist of their racism. To use the Bill Cosby example, he loves pounding the pulpit about how lazy and shiftless black people are and how their culture is about nothing but drugs and crime... and, unsurprisingly, white racists love him for this, because it gives them a shield - "this black guy says the same stupid things we do, so it's vindication for us!"

There's also this weird vibe that the republican party has, that if only they have a black candidate, they'll win the black vote (you evidenced this train of thought in your initial post) and maybe even the liberal weenie vote. The trouble there is, they're judging their potential candidate's value on his skin tone rather than his policies. Basically they think they need a "pet negro" to attract certain demographics, and also that those demographics are so stupid as to vote based solely on skin color. This mentality doesn't actually WORK (for reasons that should be glaringly obvious) but I've still seen it discussed.

However, for these two reasons - the Uncle Ruckus factor and the "pet negro" idea, i can see Cain losing the nomination, but being put forth as the VP candidate on the ticket.

reply to post by mishigas


Nah. I think it was Bill Maher who got it right when he said Cain threw his hat in the ring to sell books and perhaps to curry future favor within his political party.I think if he were really serious he'd be a bit more... prepared.. for questions regarding his stance on different subjects. Instead he babbles like a mindless boob. I was actually embarrassed for the man when they asked him his stance on abortion. His answer was so self contradictory and infused with bs that I think every living thing in a 20 mile radius was temporarily baffled and struck dumb for a good 20 seconds.

So, yeah.. whether the race question helps or hurts the man seems kind of irrelevant to me. He's just too surreal to take seriously.. even for republicans (I hope).

reply to post by mishigas

Originally posted by Lighterside

 

Sounds to me like I might of stepped in some troll bait.

First, thank you for clarifying.

Second, I ask for a simple request for backing up your claims, and you come at me with this "we won't judge you for trolling yet bull[snip]?" Stop being a paranoid delusional. The only reason I asked you to not pull your sources from an "extreme right wing blog" is because it would obviously be a biased source and most likely uncredible for it. Does it really take a damn rocket scientists to figure that out?

Third, in my second reply, I thought I would be kind enough to help you see what you were clearly unable to deduce on your own. Yes, I disagree with your entire OP. You have two points, the latter of which is solely based on the premise of the former. Hope that clarifies it for you, though it was apparent from the get go. However, it doesn't mean I am not open to the possibility. I find it highly unlikely, but I was open to seeing some well cited facts to back up your claim.


Unfortunately I have no agenda, other than looking for truth. I apologize that your "theory" doesn't garner enough attention to attract real, paid for, political shills to it. So stop your paranoid attacks and get over yourself.

Put up or shut up they say. So how bout some credible sources to backup your theory? Or would you rather just keep hiding behind petty arguments?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

 

You know Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004
Al Gore got 90% of the black vote in 2000
Bill Clinton got 84% of the black vote in 1996, and 83% in 1992.
Dukakis got 89% of the black vote in 1988
Mondale got 91% of the black vote in 1988 (and since Mondale only got 13% of the vote total, it almost looks as if only black people voted for Mondale. Weird!)
Carter got 81% of the black vote in 1980 and 83% of the black vote in 1976
Source

Hey look statistical data! Much easier to get a sense of what's really going on here. Thanks for that Fox, and you didn't even need a far left-wing blog.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by mishigas
My question was actually, will being black cost Cain votes from whites, given how Obama turned out to be such a disaster. Think of it in terms of Donovan McNabb.


That's a very odd question, really. You're basically asking, "Since they're both black, will people think Cain and Obama are the same?"

Very very close to what I'm asking. Realize that it is difficult to discuss without opening the door for racist comments to arise. But if this thread gets too testy I'll ask the mods to close it.

I'm asking: since Obama is black, and he screwed up so royally, is this what we can expect from other blacks with similar experience levels? If so, we cannot afford him at this time in our history; we are on the brink of economic disaster as it is. We need a proven leader from solid background.

I think Cain being nuts is more likely to cost him votes. In Republican primaries, there's always going to be the Kleagle Kamp busting their hoods for a whiter, more Aryan nation, but I don't think that faction will get a serious bump. At least, not consciously (there may be people who just subconsciously think a white candidate is a "more serious" candidate, for instance, who aren't actually "racist" - bias and racism are different things, after all)

Since I have no idea why you call Cain "nuts", I can't comment on this.

There's also this weird vibe that the republican party has, that if only they have a black candidate, they'll win the black vote (you evidenced this train of thought in your initial post) and maybe even the liberal weenie vote. The trouble there is, they're judging their potential candidate's value on his skin tone rather than his policies. Basically they think they need a "pet negro" to attract certain demographics, and also that those demographics are so stupid as to vote based solely on skin color. This mentality doesn't actually WORK (for reasons that should be glaringly obvious) but I've still seen it discussed.

But there ARE large blocks of voters that vote solely based on skin color. The 2008 election was a glaring example. Polls, exit polls, surveys, YouTube videos all bear this out. To deny it exists is naive.

However, for these two reasons - the Uncle Ruckus factor and the "pet negro" idea, i can see Cain losing the nomination, but being put forth as the VP candidate on the ticket.

Veep doesn't really interest me.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Thinking about why you say Cain is nuts, maybe it's this video?



It tells me that if you're looking for a politically correct wuss, Herman Cain is not your guy.

reply to post by Resinveins

reply to post by mishigas

Nah. I think it was Bill Maher who got it right when he said Cain threw his hat in the ring to sell books and perhaps to curry future favor within his political party.I think if he were really serious he'd be a bit more... prepared.. for questions regarding his stance on different subjects. Instead he babbles like a mindless boob. I was actually embarrassed for the man when they asked him his stance on abortion. His answer was so self contradictory and infused with bs that I think every living thing in a 20 mile radius was temporarily baffled and struck dumb for a good 20 seconds.

So, yeah.. whether the race question helps or hurts the man seems kind of irrelevant to me. He's just too surreal to take seriously.. even for republicans (I hope).

Bill Maher is a pathetic little dweeb with a shrinking pool of people who listen to his dirty little pervert talk.

As for your opinion on Cain, why would he care about currying favor within the GOP unless he was genuine? It's not like he waited for 20 years to make a run, after all. Catch my drift?

And he is wealthy enough to not have to sell books.

reply to post by Lighterside

Second, I ask for a simple request for backing up your claims, and you come at me with this "we won't judge you for trolling yet bull[snip]?" Stop being a paranoid delusional. The only reason I asked you to not pull your sources from an "extreme right wing blog" is because it would obviously be a biased source and most likely uncredible for it. Does it really take a damn rocket scientists to figure that out?

I provided a link, complete with stats, and without the baggage of classifying it, on page 1. From there it is up to you to read it. Mommy isn't here to stir your pablum for you.

reply to post by mishigas

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Lighterside

 

I provided a link, complete with stats, and without the baggage of classifying it, on page 1. From there it is up to you to read it. Mommy isn't here to stir your pablum for you.

ROFL! "without the baggage of classifying it", nice spin.

Really? You're really going to go with...

Originally posted by mishigas

 

For the rest of this analyst's opinion, visit the link.

...as factual and credible citation for the basis of your theory? And since when is puling quotes from an opinion considered stats? Seriously?



I know this, the maturity of your replies, your ineptitude to comprehend communication, as well as your shear lack of anything credible to back up your obvious racist driven theory has run it's course.

Have fun convincing everyone else that you are not in fact racist. I think I've heard more than enough of this bigoted drivel.

reply to post by mishigas


It's a valid question, and asking it doesn't make you racist at all. Just realistic. As for Cain....well, that's complicated. I think some want to support him BECAUSE he is black, as though it would "take a black to beat a black". Actually seen comments in various places to that effect. Or, to a lesser degree, choosing him so people won't call them racist. Either attitude is wrong. Now, will I personally vote for Cain? NO. But, the reasons are NOT his skin color.

So, why? Well, several reasons. One, he started playing the race card. Should not BE an issue, and I have a hard time supporting someone that makes it an issue. That alone, though, wasn't enough reason. His 999 plan was the BIGGEST reason. Disaster! Sorry, but I can't freaking AFFORD more income tax (and we would pay more, as a military family), and we certainly can't afford over 18% sales tax. That's what we would have, with the state and local, and his stupid federal sales tax. NO WAY! Lately, too, he was on camera stating that the government should not prohibit abortions. Well, since I think the unborn are PEOPLE, and have the same rights as others, to me, that is saying the government should not prohibit murder. He calls himself pro-life, then says that?! Three strikes, and he's OUT, in my book.

For the record, don't want Romney, or Perry, either. At this stage, Gingrich or Santorum are the best choices.

Originally posted by mishigas
I'm asking: since Obama is black, and he screwed up so royally, is this what we can expect from other blacks with similar experience levels? If so, we cannot afford him at this time in our history; we are on the brink of economic disaster as it is. We need a proven leader from solid background.

Well, there's two important things you're forgetting.
1) Barack Obama has not "screwed up royally." I'm not sure exactly what you were expecting from him, but considering the package he was dealt - saddled with two hugely expensive and terribly mismanaged wars and a recession when entering office, a legislative sweep from a party that openly declared it's #1 priority was to sabotage every effort he made and ensure his failure, etc, he's done pretty well. He's a little bit of a centrist milquetoast for my personal tastes, but he's definitely no Coolidge or Bush.

and

2) Other black people are not Barack Obama. Are we going to judge Perry or Romney on their skin color? What if they end up like Garfield, or Nixon?! or Phil Spector?!

Since I have no idea why you call Cain "nuts", I can't comment on this.

Five words: "You can buy used food."

Okay, I'll grant, he's one of the more "with it" inmates in that asylum, but still. His economic plan is essentially asking working Americans to take a 20% tax-hike in order to fund an 80% tax cut for the corporate class. I'm not sure what you want to call that but "nuts" works well for me. And I think even republicans, in their general stupor, can pick up on that.

But there ARE large blocks of voters that vote solely based on skin color. The 2008 election was a glaring example. Polls, exit polls, surveys, YouTube videos all bear this out. To deny it exists is naive.

As I pointed out, McCain did get a 25% jump from white voters, compared to every other Republican in the last forty years. But I somehow doubt that's the numbers you're trying to massage here I posed the numbers, mishgas. You can take 'em or you can leave 'em, but please don't try to pretend they say something different.

If you want to be worried about people voting for irrational factors? Worry about the voters who go on the hair of a candidate. i assure you, no matter how "big" you think the race-bloc voters are, the "good hair-bloc" outweighs them by a geometric figure.

Veep doesn't really interest me.

Personally I'm hoping for a Ron Paul veep position. I just want to see him and Biden debate. My moneys on them calling it early and going out at a titty bar to discuss beatles discography.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by mishigas
I'm asking: since Obama is black, and he screwed up so royally, is this what we can expect from other blacks with similar experience levels? If so, we cannot afford him at this time in our history; we are on the brink of economic disaster as it is. We need a proven leader from solid background.



Well, there's two important things you're forgetting.
1) Barack Obama has not "screwed up royally." I'm not sure exactly what you were expecting from him, but considering the package he was dealt - saddled with two hugely expensive and terribly mismanaged wars and a recession when entering office, a legislative sweep from a party that openly declared it's #1 priority was to sabotage every effort he made and ensure his failure, etc, he's done pretty well. He's a little bit of a centrist milquetoast for my personal tastes, but he's definitely no Coolidge or Bush.

Obama could feck up a one car funeral. His whole 'economic plan' was to raid the Treasury and pay off his union goon cronies. Surely you saw the jobs that cost a quarter million $ to 'save or create'? The legislative turned against him after 2 disastrous years. Bush inherited the recession from Willie. Obama's cap and trade was stifled, thank the Lord. His cash for clunkers was a fiasco. He walked the earth, apologizing for the US. He's a pencil-necked socialist who belongs in Europe, not here.


The rest of your post wanders, talking about Bush, McClain, etc. Really not interested.

Well it's weird now, I've read a lot of comments where the black community said they don't think Obama is black so they don't consider him the first black president because he is half white.... So a lot of them are going for Cain because he isn't mixed, they believe he would be the first true black president if that makes any sense.....

Well, I don't know if this would count as racism...
I guess you get my point.

I feel like this thread is basically saying black people are the only reason Obama got elected. This is statistically impossible both because of the percentage of blacks in america and the percentage of blacks that actually do turn out at the polls which is not that high. Plus black people usually got democrat anyway so Obama or no Obama the dems would have still gotten them. Obama also tapped into the college age segment of the population because they are very idealistic and he was promising change. Thats really what won him election, imho.

How the academic left elected obama