Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Maybe if Santorum were hispanic, the party would have backed him more. Not the regular R voters, of course, but perhaps the RNC.

Romney did say it would help if he was hispanic.

 AustonT wrote:
Can't possibly be true. He'll probably end up with about as much as McCain so 4%? It would be racist if the Democrat was white and the Republican was black and the black vote suddenly went against it's historical record. As it stands it's just unsurprising not racist.

Why do we agree on so many things?

But yeah, Obama's race may play a role, but I suspect it has more to do with rallying a black voting bloc that always swings towards the Democrats than anything else.

The original question actually makes me wonder what would have happened if Herman Cain had taken the nomination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Racism involves superiority and discrimination. You can join the NAACP if you want to and they will not prevent you from joining.

They'll also give you scholarship money, even if you happen to be white.

 dogma wrote:
The original question actually makes me wonder what would have happened if Herman Cain had taken the nomination.
.

Almost nothing. There's an impolite term they would likely use to describe him.

 Mannahnin wrote:
To my understanding the hispanic vote is an even bigger issue for them. They're trying to make inroads on the basis of some strong religious conservatism in those communities.

Definitely. As I understand it the latino vote has always been Democratic, but nowhere near as one sided as the black vote (the latino vote is about 65 35 IIRC). The issue there is that the trend is downward, and it is perhaps the key demographic in the next twenty years, given the way population is going.

The Republicans are trying to make in-roads into the latino vote, and are likely to have more success than with the black vote, but their approach, to me, seems doomed to failure. They appear to be going to these groups and asking them 'how can we explain our policies in a way that'll appeal to you?', instead of asking 'what policies can we adopt that would appeal to you?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
the problem there is the immigration rhetoric, and again the issues of poverty.

Yeah, it's a fun fact to remember that in 2000 Muslims overwhelmingly voted for Bush, as they agreed with his socially conservative values.

Bush actually did pretty well at not playing the race card against Muslims, perhaps in part because he knew they were a solid Republican voting bloc but he couldn't stop others doing the same. In 2004 that voting bloc just collapsed, and it hasn't returned to the polls since then.

In terms of long term strategy, it basically sums up the big problem for the Republicans - that a lot of policies that work well in getting out their traditional voting bloc, like anti-immigration, and anti-welfare with strong components of race-baiting, hurt their standing among the growing demographic groups.

 Polonius wrote:

Almost nothing. There's an impolite term they would likely use to describe him.

Possibly, but I've heard that term used with regard to Obama as well.

Clearly Obama would still have captured the majority of the vote, but I wonder how many would have moved to Cain.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sure it's racism... just not the "bad one".

As always, it's a bit more complicated.

Black people, as a race, at least in the US, have a pretty strongly similar ethnic and cultural heritage. Being a "black american" means sometimes: West African, protestant christian, legacy of slavery, deep, deep roots in the south, food, language, music, etc. It is a definition based on attributes.

White people, as a race in the US, has historically been the opposite: a definition of exclusion. It's light skinned people, to be sure, but it's expanded to include Jew, the Irish, southern and eastern europeans, Middle easterners, etc. To be "white" is not to come from a common background, or even race (even light skinned latinos or arabs dont' call themselves "white.") To be "white" is to be in the political center. It is, in most ways, to be without race.

To celebrate being "white" isn't a celebration of a culture. It's a celebration of a stranglehold on power.

Want to celebrate something? Celebrate what you do have. Ethnicity, religion, language. Nobody objects to "appalachian pride," and they're whiter than a fresh snowfall.

I am amused by this. Largely because I live in the middle of the largest Somali population center in the state with the largest Somali population outside of ... Somalia. And it has brought the Black and White Americans together in a shared dislike of the Somalians.

But as far as the OP - flip the scrip - if that was the percentages against Obama amongst the white folks population, would that be racist? Sure.

But, far more importantly, are there still people who both care about national elections and think their votes matter? Talk about delusional.

Only once we all embrace apathy can we achieve a lasting world peace.

 dogma wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Almost nothing. There's an impolite term they would likely use to describe him.

Possibly, but I've heard that term used with regard to Obama as well.

Yeah... but there are always malcontents calling whoever is running or in power something or another. It's different when the accusation is, well... true.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:


I am amused by this. Largely because I live in the middle of the largest Somali population center in the state with the largest Somali population outside of ... Somalia. And it has brought the Black and White Americans together in a shared dislike of the Somalians.

True, recent African immigrants are "black," but have shockingly little in common with African Americans. Maybe, in time, "black america" diversify, but right now it's pretty overwhelmingly homogenous, at least compared to Whites, Latinos, or Asians.

It's what we get when our four "races" are actually three races and a language (white, asian, black, vs. Latino) with one race having essentially one nationality (black americans) and "white" being technically a race, but really more short hand for "non-ethnic."

 Polonius wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Almost nothing. There's an impolite term they would likely use to describe him.

Possibly, but I've heard that term used with regard to Obama as well.

Yeah... but there are always malcontents calling whoever is running or in power something or another. It's different when the accusation is, well... true.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:


I am amused by this. Largely because I live in the middle of the largest Somali population center in the state with the largest Somali population outside of ... Somalia. And it has brought the Black and White Americans together in a shared dislike of the Somalians.

True, recent African immigrants are "black," but have shockingly little in common with African Americans. Maybe, in time, "black america" diversify, but right now it's pretty overwhelmingly homogenous, at least compared to Whites, Latinos, or Asians.

It's what we get when our four "races" are actually three races and a language (white, asian, black, vs. Latino) with one race having essentially one nationality (black americans) and "white" being technically a race, but really more short hand for "non-ethnic."

Well, hobviously. That American blacks aren't the same as African blacks wasn't the main thrust of my point, otherwise I'd have brought up Liberia. I'm just disagreeing with your assessment of "whites", in general. That there are groups based on exclusion can't be denied, but that is cultural, not racial. Everyone distrusts the new guy. Just how we work.

 Polonius wrote:

Yeah... but there are always malcontents calling whoever is running or in power something or another. It's different when the accusation is, well... true.

Sebster wrote:and somehow continue to concede the Christian vote to the party that is opposed to charity and social justice.

Government handouts are not "charity". Charity is voluntary.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Government handouts are not "charity". Charity is voluntary.

There's nothing saying charity must be voluntary. The act of giving to those less fortunate is charity, whether everyone involved in the process volunteered their contribution or not.

Second up, the charity isn't you paying tax. That's you doing your part for the functioning of a modern economy. The charity is in the people, through the government, choosing to give some portion of the public fund to the poor.



More importantly, please just stop the imaginary games. No-one believes that you're against having money taken because you want to choose how much you give. We all know it's because you want to have the choice to give nothing. And that's fine, 'feth you I've got mine' is an effective political line. But stop with the pretending.

It's more "feth you, you don't know me". so stop pretending.

I don't think charitable donations is a tree the democrats want to start barking up either.

 dogma wrote:
The original question actually makes me wonder what would have happened if Herman Cain had taken the nomination.

We would experience the most entertaining TV of all time between now and November. I seriously was hoping that Romney would've picked Cain for VP.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's more "feth you, you don't know me". so stop pretending.

Yeah. And the reason we need to legalise theft is so that I can have the choice to not to take other people's things. Yep, that makes perfect sense. People totally oppose giving because they want a theoretical moral choice that they'd never actually make.

I don't think charitable donations is a tree the democrats want to start barking up either.

At what point did we start pretending that rich people giving some money away could address the basic welfare requirements of modern life?

"We need about 2.5 trillion to fund government."
"Romney gave away 4 million."
"That number is really pointlessly small to the one I gave. It can't possibly be a substitute, so I have no clue why you're bringing it up."
"Because yay my guy and boo your guy."

 d-usa wrote:
Black people not voting for the guy whose party is trying to make it harder for black people to vote and implies that they are all on welfare?

Clearly racist.

But welcome to the "if we made a white people club we are racist, but the NAACP is okay?" club.

Not to stray TOO far down that road, but my brother the Giant and I have actually felt that before in person. We had a great idea for a personal business tearing down mobile homes and then scrapping them ( people fled Michigan in droves, and left thousands of homes/mobile homes vacant) So anyways, we were lining up jobs and figured we should try and get a grant from the state to help pay for some of the tools and a dump truck. We were literally told by an official that dealt in those things, that we cant because we were white males. And I quote " Now if either of you were minorities, like black folk, youd get this grant approved by tomorrow"

Still to this day, when I think of that, Im a bit shocked.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.

I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).

Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.

And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Government handouts are not "charity". Charity is voluntary.

There's nothing saying charity must be voluntary. The act of giving to those less fortunate is charity, whether everyone involved in the process volunteered their contribution or not.

Thats the very definition of "not charity." Its easy to be cahritable with other people's money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingCracker wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Black people not voting for the guy whose party is trying to make it harder for black people to vote and implies that they are all on welfare?

Clearly racist.

But welcome to the "if we made a white people club we are racist, but the NAACP is okay?" club.

Not to stray TOO far down that road, but my brother the Giant and I have actually felt that before in person. We had a great idea for a personal business tearing down mobile homes and then scrapping them ( people fled Michigan in droves, and left thousands of homes/mobile homes vacant) So anyways, we were lining up jobs and figured we should try and get a grant from the state to help pay for some of the tools and a dump truck. We were literally told by an official that dealt in those things, that we cant because we were white males. And I quote " Now if either of you were minorities, like black folk, youd get this grant approved by tomorrow"

Still to this day, when I think of that, Im a bit shocked.

Why? Thats minority set asides. Now the smart evil one will set up a front "minority" to take the contract. A smarter evil one will have arelative run for office so they can steer valuable contracts to those companies. Time honored tradition. What you thought politicians suddenly got rich in office off their massive salaries?

I found it hilarious. Rewatching Casino (with notes). The big politician towards the end who was being paid kickbacks and "entertainment" and who disavowed the Mob guy was based on an actual politician: Harry Reid. Good to be the King baby.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.

I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).

Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.

And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.

Not even slightly true. Over the last thirty years a bunch of big Republicans have been closely associated with equally inflammatory jackasses (usually with bigger audiences) like Jerry Falwell. And it's never hurt them any.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.

I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).

Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.

And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.

Not even slightly true. Over the last thirty years a bunch of big Republicans have been closely associated with equally inflammatory jackasses (usually with bigger audiences) like Jerry Falwell. And it's never hurt them any.

Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.

I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).

Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.

And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.

Not even slightly true. Over the last thirty years a bunch of big Republicans have been closely associated with equally inflammatory jackasses (usually with bigger audiences) like Jerry Falwell. And it's never hurt them any.

Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.

Except, you know, reagan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority#1980

I mean, yes, at a point you can narrow the argument to "No Hawaiian born former law professor that associated with a chicago preacher/terrorist ever became president!" Sure, that's true.

But you seem to rule out the possibility that people made a rational choice about Obama and Wright. That it's not the choice you would make doesn't make it the result of chicanery.

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Explained largely by Obama's ability to combine discussion of poverty with evangelical overtones, something that would appeal to a population that is very religious and largely concerned with poverty.

I think that's an excellent point Sebster. Note that a majority of African American leadership has the preceding honorific Reverend. President Obama broke that mold (perhaps not the first--but certainly the first with that degree of success).

Ironically, a fellow Reverend caused him a great deal of angst during the primary---and talk about navigating a political landmine? If anyone still has doubts that Obama is a skilled politician with a savvy campaign staff--just go back and listen/watch how he handled the Reverend Wright scandal.

And an MSM rooting for him in a big way. No other politician (especially on the right) would have been able to survive such an association.

Not even slightly true. Over the last thirty years a bunch of big Republicans have been closely associated with equally inflammatory jackasses (usually with bigger audiences) like Jerry Falwell. And it's never hurt them any.

Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.

Except, you know, reagan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority#1980

I mean, yes, at a point you can narrow the argument to "No Hawaiian born former law professor that associated with a chicago preacher/terrorist ever became president!" Sure, that's true.

But you seem to rule out the possibility that people made a rational choice about Obama and Wright. That it's not the choice you would make doesn't make it the result of chicanery.

Whats wrong with the Moral Majority, especially pre 1980?
Oh I'm not. I'm saying that association would have been made a much bigger deal. The association with Ayers however, would have precluded him from even running back in the day.
Its like the normal vetting process (for both parties) have bpt aside and we've been awash in a sea of amateurs since Clinton.

I mean lets get real. If the Republicans had a half decent candidate they would be stomping Obama like bad cheese right now.

 Frazzled wrote:

Whats wrong with the Moral Majority, especially pre 1980?
Oh I'm not. I'm saying that association would have been made a much bigger deal. The association with Ayers however, would have precluded him from even running back in the day.
Its like the normal vetting process (for both parties) have bpt aside and we've been awash in a sea of amateurs since Clinton.

I mean lets get real. If the Republicans had a half decent candidate they would be stomping Obama like bad cheese right now.

I think you're right, in that a good presidential candidate could win this race easily. Good luck finding that.

And I think that stuff was easier to hide in the past, not harder. First, there were no independent bloggers or the internet. Stuff really could be controlled by MSM.

Second, I think you're problem isn't that the MSM didn't cover the Ayers thing, it's just that nobody cared. I mean, even if you take a pretty slanted interpretation of the facts, "Obama's mentor is a terrorist," that gets some eyeballs, sure. Then people read further, and find out that he didn't mentor obama in terrorism. And that his association was distant and collegial. And long after he stopped being a terrorist. Soon, people get bored, because they don't want to hear about meetings in the 90's involving domestic terrorists from the 70s. It's just not a horribly interesting story.

I'm not going to pretend that there isn't bias in journalism. But sometimes stories fade away because they just aren't interesting.

 Polonius wrote:
[
I think you're right, in that a good presidential candidate could win this race easily. Good luck finding that.

Yep.

And I think that stuff was easier to hide in the past, not harder. First, there were no independent bloggers or the internet. Stuff really could be controlled by MSM.

Yep

Second, I think you're problem isn't that the MSM didn't cover the Ayers thing, it's just that nobody cared. I mean, even if you take a pretty slanted interpretation of the facts, "Obama's mentor is a terrorist," that gets some eyeballs, sure. Then people read further, and find out that he didn't mentor obama in terrorism. And that his association was distant and collegial. And long after he stopped being a terrorist. Soon, people get bored, because they don't want to hear about meetings in the 90's involving domestic terrorists from the 70s. It's just not a horribly interesting story.

I'm not going to pretend that there isn't bias in journalism. But sometimes stories fade away because they just aren't interesting.

Here we have to respectfully disagree. If there were a Republican candidate, there would have been an endless drumbeat about it. After al the MSM went berserk about a story of a prank, decades ago from the Romney past. Now put cocaine use and having your mentor being a Weatherman, and they would have been all over it like flies on roadkill.

Yes, media bias is so horrible that we never talk about Ayers and instead talk about the drug money that was used to initially fund Bain Capital. Damn the drive by media!

Anyone who thinks that the Republicans had a lock this year with a good candidate is deluding themselves. A strong majority of the country believes that our current economic troubles are the fault of President Bush, and Obama is otherwise well liked. It's okay, though, when Romney loses and the Republican Party has a Night of Weird Knives it'll be hilarious to watch.

 Frazzled wrote:


Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.

perhaps it's more to do with how people's perceptions change over time.

Especially with regards to what does and does not make one a terrorist.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.

perhaps it's more to do with how people's perceptions change over time.

Especially with regards to what does and does not make one a terrorist.

Silly you, they are not terrorists.

If they are on our side they are brave freedom fighters.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Incredibly true. None of them had a chane to be President. Obama's associations WITH A KNOWN TERRORIST AS A MENTOR would never have been glossed over if he weren't an MSM favored son.

perhaps it's more to do with how people's perceptions change over time.

Especially with regards to what does and does not make one a terrorist.

Not to get too OT, but at that time, the Taliban weren't that fething nuts (or, at least, it wasn't reported). I wonder when they started going extreme?!?!

Back on topic... I'm with Frazz, but I'll take it a step further... ANY politician (with (R) or (D) ) with Obama's history/association would've never made it. That just shows how powerful as a candidate and compaigner Obama is...

Is that picture edited or is that really a woman in there on the far right? That's different from what I'd expect from the Taliban alright. And I dare say it looks like she's getting a word in... edge wise.

True that EXCEPT:
Ayers was a Weatherman, directly involved in bombings and activities that killed police in the 70s. His events were known.

The Taliban formed after Reagan came to office. Now you want one thats form that time look up his support of the rebels in El Salvador.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Is that picture edited or is that really a woman in there on the far right? That's different from what I'd expect from the Taliban alright. And I dare say it looks like she's getting a word in... edge wise.

Don't worry I'm sure she visited a soccer stadium shortly after they came to power.

but at that time, the Taliban weren't that fething nuts (or, at least, it wasn't reported).

I don't think the Russians would agree here

I wonder when they started going extreme?!?!

Victory proved that Allah was on their side AFAIK

ANY politician (with (R) or (D) ) with Obama's history/association would've never made it. That just shows how powerful as a candidate and compaigner Obama is...

Possibly.


... I'm sure there's a line here about how it would have been better for him to remain as an unknown but I can't be bothered

Now you want one thats from that time look up his support of the rebels in El Salvador.

yeah, those nuns don't charbroil themselves after all !