1% of Georgia Blacks voted in the July Republican primary (Franklin: racist, mayor)

[suprascooby22]

Originally Posted by Akhenaton06

Yeah, we've always voted for White folks. I just wanted to show that we've also voted for White folks when a Black candidate was on the ticket as well.



Hmmm, that IS interesting. I wonder if the low number in '92 was because of Clinton singing Reagan's praises as part of his campaign strategy? I'd probably attribute the '94 number to the welfare reform initiative that was forged as a compromise with Congressional Republicans. I don't think many Black politicians or voters looked at that favorably.

True but you guys also voted for Alvin Greene this year in South Carolina. Remember him? He got almost 40% of the vote and could barely hold a rational converstaton with a tomato can.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=IDb7l0AAvUY

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by JClyde

The problem Black Americans are going to have in the future is that we are not going to be America's "favorite" minority for too much longer.

Hispanics are here, and they are here to stay. Mexifornia and the South West has made them into a seizable force. Amnesty will be here in some form or another.

So there will be 20mil new voters that both parties need to pander too. So I believe the only way for Black Americans to "survive" the next 50 years. Is to have an almost 50/50 split between both parties.

But it seems that every year. Some Republican makes a racial slur/joke/reference. That just keeps Blacks voting along party lines. It's like the Republicans can't seem to get out of their own way.

Good post.

I would point out that if a democrat makes a slur/joke or is even ex-klan or has relations with an intern the NAACP or NOW will come out and give them support where if it's a republican they will rake them over the coals. (LOL the NAACP's own website had a timeline of historical events\laws etc. and when you read it they'd removed the (R) from the names of any pro-black legislation and the (D) from the bad stuff so they'd scoured history of the pre-60's stuff which is funny. (The patriarch of the Daley family...Mayor of Chicago greeted MLK himself with police and dogs when they marched on his racist segregated vision of Chicago which has taken decades to slowly recover from.)

Consequently, I think the republicans have given up on the black vote and focused on other areas.

This is REALLY bad for blacks because that means the Democrats now have free milke so to speak and only really have to pay lip-service to them.

The hispanic vote is so powerful because they are will vote either way. For example, the cuban vote in Florida is what cost Gore the election vs. Bush....and when Bush turned out to be soft on Castro they voted for Kerry.

P.S. There are groups that do the same for Republicans but that's for another thread.

[Akhenaton06]

Originally Posted by suprascooby22

True but you guys also voted for Alvin Greene this year in South Carolina. Remember him? He got almost 40% of the vote and could barely hold a rational converstaton with a tomato can.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=IDb7l0AAvUY

A few things here.

Firstly, this example in no way invalidates the examples I cited. Black people have voted for Whites with other Black candidates on the ballot several times and Blacks have never had a problem voting for Whites in this country.

Secondly, no one even really knew who Alvin Greene was before the Democratic primary so surely his lack of political persona had nothing to do with it. After he won, people were like "Alvin who"? As a matter of fact, one voter who voted for Greene was asked why and she said, "I voted for him because his name sounded like the singer and I had never heard of Vic Rawl [Greene's opponent in the primary]." It was pretty much a fluke. As one article puts it:

It’s also worth noting that Greene’s opponent in South Carolina, a judge and former state legislator named Vic Rawl, polled poorly among South Carolina Democrats last month: only 4 percent had a favorable opinion of him, while 82 percent were unsure, according to a May survey by Public Policy Polling. That’s a strong indication that many S.C. Democrats simply didn’t know who Rawl was either.

If that’s the case, then it’s anybody’s guess how the 100,000 or so folks who voted for Greene made their decision. Abramowitz said race can sometimes tip the balance in elections where voters don’t know much about the candidates. Indeed, Greene is black, Rawl is white, and there are many African-American voters among South Carolina Democrats. But it’s not clear that voters knew even that much about these two candidates when they stepped into the booth, and their photos were not on the ballot. We can also throw out the possibility that Greene got the votes because the ballot listed him as a veteran; candidates’ occupations are not listed on the ballot in South Carolina either.

More likely, voters were simply choosing based on an immediate reaction to the names they saw. Name recognition matters at the polls, after all. Look no further than the electoral success of Texas Democrat Gene Kelly, who shares a name with the late actor and who received more than 9 million votes in 14 elections without running much of a campaign. Greene may not have had that sort of name recognition, but his name was listed above Rawl’s on the ballot. “It is pretty well established that being first helps,” says Gary Jacobsen, political science professor at the University of California, San Diego.

Thirdly, if I still lived in SC, I would probably would have voted for Greene in the general election as well--not because he's Black and definitely not because I thought he would win or was even fit for office, but more as an anti-vote against DeMint. I suspect some others were doing likewise.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

Would you like to elaborate on why Rubio would not be a successful presidential candidate? Is he too white for you?

Considering that you do not know my race or ethnicity, I don't understand how you could think Marco Rubio can be too white for me.

[BringBackCobain]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Considering that you do not know my race or ethnicity, I don't understand how you could think Marco Rubio can be too white for me.

Are you kidding? You're not fooling anybody. You're black. Of course, admitting this would discredit the agenda you push on here at every turn, so it's no surprise that you won't admit it.

[BringBackCobain]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

I'm a Christian, so I subscribe to all that tiresome stuff in the bible about welcoming the alien in your midst, turning the other cheek, compassion, etc.

What US immigrants from all countries have in common is the same qualifications -- qualifications which the illegal immigrants lack. No matter how long a person (of any nationality) without a college degree or US citizen in their immediately family is willing to wait patiently, they won't be getting into the US. (Yes, I'm simplifying by leaving out some special cases, but they apply to very few people).

How do you know that legal immigrants from China and Mexico share your point of view? I think you may be mistaken about that.

Please stop promoting the liberal Canadian view on immigration--it's very annoying when immigrants try to tell Americans how they should run their immigration policy. I suppose you think we should take it one step further and allow entry to one million Muslim immigrants per year, like Europe?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

Please stop promoting the liberal Canadian view on immigration--it's very annoying when immigrants try to tell Americans how they should run their immigration policy.

I'm not irritated in the least. The U.S. will make up its own mind how to handle immigration, and Lord knows we've probably got more experience with this that any other country. But it's a complicated problem and I certainly welcome other ideas.

[912]

Pure bunk, all of this.

Blacks, as a group, do tend to vote democrat for racial reasons. Want proof? Look to Kinston, NC.

Kinston, NC overruled by Feds on non-partisan elections - U.S. Politics - MarketWatch Group Discussion

Race vs. Party Affiliation « WNYMedia.net (http://wnymedia.net/paulwolf/2009/10/race-vs-party-affiliation/ - broken link)

From the link above:
The Justice Department also expressed concern that nonpartisan elections would eliminate political party support that is provided to black candidates. The conclusion reached by the Justice Department is highlighted in the excerpt below:
“Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.”

[RainyRainyDay]

Thanks, arjay57. Rereading my post quoted by BringBackCobain above, I'm at a loss to see what's "liberal Canadian" about it. The only opinion content was the Biblical view on immigration. Like many of my fellow Americans, I look to my faith for guidance on moral issues.

Apart from that the post was mostly facts (not opinion) about current US immigration regulations, a topic on which I'm quite well informed, due to recent personal experience of the US immigration process.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

Are you kidding? You're not fooling anybody. You're black. Of course, admitting this would discredit the agenda you push on here at every turn, so it's no surprise that you won't admit it.

How do you know?

And what agenda is this?

The inside of your mind would be a very entertaining movie...