Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What was the polling for McCain when he ran against the Black guy? So what's changed between then & now? I'm sure you know some Conservative Blacks. Ask them if they've ever seen a more racially hostile election cycle than these last 2-4 years.
When Republicans have made outreach attempts to Blacks AND avoided denigrating them to White rural crowds, they've had their Black support. This election cycle, they have failed in BOTH regards. There hasn't been a single outreach attempt by Republicans for the Black vote, only comments to support/promote negative stereotypes to White crowds. That always looks a certain way, regardless if you're D or R.
And don't tell me that the appearance of respect doesn't play a part in the voting process b/c many Republicans vote on who shows more respect or is less hostile to the things they care about, like religion.
I'm not denying that the GOP doesn't have blame. They could have done a lot more to mend racial relations but for whatever reason, they haven't. And with McCain running in 08 and Romney in 12, not much has changed...and neither have african american polling figures...both of which were around 0%. In my congressional district in AZ the GOP candidate, Vernon Parker is black and he is pulling quite a bit of black support, especially from AA business owners. These same business owners have openly supported Obama. The NAACP office in Phoenix has Parker and Obama signs all over the front of their building despite Obama being liberal and Parker being a Tea Party republican. Obama and Parker have POLAR opposite political stances yet both are pooling a lot of the black votes.
But Blacks obviously aren't the only ones that vote on the intangibles. Some redneck whites in Mississippi will only vote for Romney because Obama is black. Catholics overwhelmingly voted for Kennedy. Mormons will overwhelmingly vote for Romney. Keith Ellison attracted nearly 100% of the muslim vote. That congressman out in Oregon who is an atheist will pull probably all the non religious vote.....Now obviously this isn't ALL for their personal characterisitic but it certainly seems to follow suit.
Here's the problem with the Obama/Black vote theory:
if it were JUST about race, wouldn't Jessie Jackson have experienced the same level of turnout when he ran?
Does anyone remember that Hilary was polling higher than Obama among black people at first? Doesn't anyone recall the parade of "Obama's not black enough" stories in the media at the time? He didn't start to pass Hillary until 1. He won Iowa and New Hampshire and 2. Bill Clinton started running around South Carolina saying things that gave off a whiff of race baiting. That's when he picked up speed with the black vote. He had to convince people to switch to him, it was not automatically granted.
Even with Sarah Palin on the ticket, McCain did not get 0% of the black vote in polls. There is more going on there than just Obama being black.
Black people have voted overwhelmingly Democrat for years, as in over 90%. When Obama ran the first time we saw that go up a some points and more people turn out to the polls, no doubt inspired at least in part by the "first black president" excitement, but he was destined to get over 90% anyway just like any other Democrat. Hillary would have gotten that too.
Race "loyalty" is surely a contributing factor, but I doubt to the degree some are trying to make it.
You assume I'm liberal. I'm not - I've stated many, many times before that I'm a Centrist (Moderate/Independent).
You're doing your party a disservice by attempting to attack me like you have been. No wonder you're upset that a black man is in the Oval Office.
You asked a question, I answered it. What more do you want?
I'm not upset a black man is in office. I'm upset that you don't seem to understand my question and that you keep harping on race. I've said...I have no issues with black people. I wouldn't have married a black woman if I did. I'm also upset that you seem to have no other argument other than appeals to me being a racist despite you not knowing me and your assumption that because I don't like the job Obama has done...that I have an issue with black people being in office. I'm not sure what makes you think this other than the fact that I don't like Barack Obama. Which further validates to me that you are the one with perverse racial issues.
...And no you didn't answer my question.
My question isn't what qualifies a man to be the President. As I mentioned (and you probably misread), I'm well aware.
My question is what characteristics about Obama made him a desirable candidate in 2008. I even tried to provide some jumping points for you. Past experience, Education, anything...
Yes I have. Read my past replies to you. Reading comprehension is a very great thing to possess. I suggest you learn up on it.
Quote:
My question is what characteristics about Obama made him a desirable candidate in 2008. I even tried to provide some jumping points for you. Past experience, Education, anything...
You asked me what qualified Obama for POTUS and I answered it at least 3 separate times.
Get over your racist hate of Obama (even if you have a Black wife, big whoop) and understand that a black man is running the country instead of one of YOUR white brothers.
Yes I have. Read my past replies to you. Reading comprehension is a very great thing to possess. I suggest you learn up on it.
You asked me what qualified Obama for POTUS and I answered it at least 3 separate times.
Get over your racist hate of Obama (even if you have a Black wife, big whoop) and understand that a black man is running the country instead of one of YOUR white brothers.
Let me just make sure I understand this...
Barack Obama is qualified to be president in as much as he hits the minimum requirements to run for office...and Nothing more.
So....by your own admission and inability to expound upon your reasoning...I have no other recourse but to deduce that you feel that Obama is minimally qualified to be the President with no redeeming qualities beyond his attainment of a certain age.
I'm guessing alot of republicans voted for Obama last time after considering the alternative, and, that might happen again, because the alternative hasn't changed that much. Except for the fact that the veep GOP candidate isn't a busy ditch.
I don't consider myself a Republican, but I am a conservative-leaning Independent.
I did vote for Obama last time, for 3 or 4 reasons that were important to me. But, one of those points was that I had heard that physiologically, a president ages approximately 4 years for every year in office. I think McCain would have been a better president than Obama, but I wasn't ready to risk that thought on the age and physical well-being of an aging prior POW... especially when Palin was waiting in the wings. I don't think the nation is ready for someone as radically far from center as she was (I don't think Obama is as far left as Palin is right).
But, I voted for Romney this time because economics and creating an economic environment that encourages job growth are the most important issues this time. I also believe that whoever gets elected will spend the next 4 years term doing nothing but fixing the economy. Anyone who doesn't spend full effort and time on that will fail.
And, given between a lawyer and community organizer or a self-made millionaire who has both had to fire people but has created thousands of jobs as well... it was an easy choice.
Also, Romney was voted Governor of Mass... not an easy task in a heavily liberal state like that. To do it, he had to convince liberals and conservatives alike that he can create issues that will take care of their needs/issues. By all accounts, he was a very successful governor. Obama has been nothing but partisan and divisive. I don't know if it's just a sign of the times, the higher visibility of office or something else.
But I currently stand on the other side of the political line of all of his accomplishments. He has done several things I hoped it wouldn't; and, things I hoped he would, he's not done.
I don't consider myself a Republican, but I am a conservative-leaning Independent.
I did vote for Obama last time, for 3 or 4 reasons that were important to me. But, one of those points was that I had heard that physiologically, a president ages approximately 4 years for every year in office. I think McCain would have been a better president than Obama, but I wasn't ready to risk that thought on the age and physical well-being of an aging prior POW... especially when Palin was waiting in the wings. I don't think the nation is ready for someone as radically far from center as she was (I don't think Obama is as far left as Palin is right).
But, I voted for Romney this time because economics and creating an economic environment that encourages job growth are the most important issues this time. I also believe that whoever gets elected will spend the next 4 years term doing nothing but fixing the economy. Anyone who doesn't spend full effort and time on that will fail.
And, given between a lawyer and community organizer or a self-made millionaire who has both had to fire people but has created thousands of jobs as well... it was an easy choice.
Also, Romney was voted Governor of Mass... not an easy task in a heavily liberal state like that. To do it, he had to convince liberals and conservatives alike that he can create issues that will take care of their needs/issues. By all accounts, he was a very successful governor. Obama has been nothing but partisan and divisive. I don't know if it's just a sign of the times, the higher visibility of office or something else.
But I currently stand on the other side of the political line of all of his accomplishments. He has done several things I hoped it wouldn't; and, things I hoped he would, he's not done.
Well...according to this other idiot that keeps posting in here adiosetoreador....you and I are racist because we just can't stand the thought of a black man in office. Nevermind the fact that he lacks the ability to provide a defense for his sub-par candidate of choice with exception to his ever prevelant appeals to race.
Barack Obama is qualified to be president in as much as he hits the minimum requirements to run for office...and Nothing more.
So....by your own admission and inability to expound upon your reasoning...I have no other recourse but to deduce that you feel that Obama is minimally qualified to be the President with no redeeming qualities beyond his attainment of a certain age.
It looks like we are finally getting somewhere.
....and yeah we know...race, race race.
That's all this issue is to you racists. A black man is in office and you want a white man in there. Try to deflect that all you want, but you're not shying away from this.
One thing matters to you about the POTUS and one thing only:
Contrary to some other posters on here, I see large value in the subject of this thread. Not that it will matter much in the annals of American history, but in a more retrospective view and a look at American societal dynamics and psychology.
I got most of the information from the Internet, and, therefore, cannot account for the veracity of all the information. But, on the surface, it does (in fact) appear that Obama did not have the experience to the level of many of his predecessors (with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan).
Barack H. Obama - Education: Columbia, Harvard Law. Military Service: None. Political Experience: State Senator (6 years), U.S. Senator (1 year). Positions/Accomplishments: Director of Developing Communities, State Chairman of Health and Human Services. Jobs: Law professor.
George W. Bush - Education: Yale, Harvard. Military Service: Air National Guard. Political Experience: Governor of Texas (5 years). Positions/Accomplishments: First Texas Governor elected to two consecutive terms. Credited (while Governor) with Texas becoming national leader in wind power. Jobs: Business creator/owner (oil industry).
William J. Clinton - Education: Georgetown, Yale, Oxford. Military Service: None. Political Experience: State Attorney General, Governor of Arkansas (12 years). Positions/Accomplishments: Organized State Democratic Leadership Council, Chair of National Governors Association. Jobs: Law professor.
Similarly George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and James (Jimmy) E. Carter all had military service, previous state political stations, and held various positions (Reagan's outside of politics).
Does this make Obama unqualified for President? Of course not. But, it's still a valid question whether someone who was white with those same qualifications would have gotten the votes necessary to beat Hillary Clinton? Agreed that it's a "what if" scenario, but I don't know what people personally have against that.
The point is valid, in my opinion, and worthy of discussion. We're supposed to be a society that treats people equally. We know that's not the case by a long shot. We're also supposed to learn about racial equality through asking and addressing the tough questions. So, I guess I don't know where the heartburn is in the OP asking.
I do not think that a white politician with the same qualifications as Obama would have beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. I base that not on race alone, but on the qualifications of Hillary herself, and those of all who were presidents all the way back to the mid-70s.
Last edited by Rathagos; 11-01-2012 at 02:01 PM..
Reason: Spelling correction
That's all this issue is to you racists. A black man is in office and you want a white man in there. Try to deflect that all you want, but you're not shying away from this.
One thing matters to you about the POTUS and one thing only:
Skin Color.
race, race, race, race, race, race, race.
Translation: I can't answer your question because I lack the ability to string together a coherent, relevant thought that doesn't end up with me whining like a petulant teenager about race.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
