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.
Actually, it proves that Blacks STOPPED being Republican in the 1960s. You are missing my point. I am not talking about when Blacks started voting Democrat. I'm talking about when Blacks stopped voting Republican. The latter question is of more importance.
Well gee so the remaining 20% of Blacks who voted for the GOP before the CRA stopped, big deal. How long will Dems be rewarded by the Black community for passing the CRA, eternity? Will Dems have to campaign in Black areas any more?
As of recent, it isn't just Blacks who have felt alienated. As of recent, more Hispanic and Asian voters, and even many women have felt alienated.
Well gee, telling them all their programs and rights would be severed if the Republicans got into office only helped fuel that fire.
The right to an abortion was never on the table for debate at the Fed level.
Amending the Constitution to put the Blacks back into slavery was never on the table for debate.
And telling Americans that the Republican party is only old white guys that hate everyone is not true either.
The majority of Americans are so apathetic and undeduated about current events that they probably believed what was told to them.
One girl interviewed while waiting to vote said she was voting for Obama so that assisted suicide would be made legal. Of all the people interviewed I remembered that one because it was so far out there and she was serious.
Even if more voters have turned out for 2008 and 2012, what percentage of those voters turned out because there was a Black man running for office?
Did I say that? I just presented the other half of the story that wasn't being mentioned. Statistics can be used to criticize or support a topic depending upon how you use them...especially if you don't provide the "whole" picture.
In 1992, Clinton was elected with a 61% voter turnout from all citizens. Although he was VERY popular among Black voters, their turnout was 53.7%....that's 7.3% less than the turnout for all citizens. Fast forward to 2008, the voter turnout for all citizens was 58%....3% less than in 1992 when the last Democrat was elected president. Black voter turnout in 2008 was 60.2%....not only was higher than the all citizen voter turnout (for the first time ever), it was only 0.8% shy of what the all citizens voter turnout was in 1992 (even though the all citizens voter turnout was 3% less in 2008).
Those are the facts...why don't you tell me what that means? Mind you, no where have I brought up what race any president elected is/was...that's something you brought up? Why?
With regards what was there to talk about? African Americans fully realize that the Republican Party has no concern for civil rights enforcement (see the various voter suppression laws) and that Democrats remain committed to it. As for urban development, what did you think the stimulus was all about?
Interesting you mention this. Former Republican chairman of Florida Jim Greer said that Republicans(at least in Florida) were trying to suppress minority voters from going to the polls. Governor of Texas Rick Perry said that he wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
Did I say that? I just presented the other half of the story that wasn't being mentioned. Statistics can be used to criticize or support a topic depending upon how you use them...especially if you don't provide the "whole" picture.
In 1992, Clinton was elected with a 61% voter turnout from all citizens. Although he was VERY popular among Black voters, their turnout was 53.7%....that's 7.3% less than the turnout for all citizens. Fast forward to 2008, the voter turnout for all citizens was 58%....3% less than in 1992 when the last Democrat was elected president. Black voter turnout in 2008 was 60.2%....not only was higher than the all citizen voter turnout (for the first time ever), it was only 0.8% shy of what the all citizens voter turnout was in 1992 (even though the all citizens voter turnout was 3% less in 2008).
Those are the facts...why don't you tell me what that means? Mind you, no where have I brought up what race any president elected is/was...that's something you brought up? Why?
The way you were presenting it, it could have been used to say "Blacks turned out in large numbers because a a Black man was running for office". How would I know that wasn't the case? I asked what percentage because my point is that there are alot of people who would have turned out to vote anyway.
I'm not talking about that part. I'm talking about people who are complaining about Blacks voting for President Obama. My response is this: What strategy does this Republican Party have to bring more people to their party? Why haven't more conservatives confronted the fact that minorities basically feel alienated from the Republican Party? Michael Steele has done it. Why isn't there more discussion about it?
O. K. I will take a stab at this. For years we have been told that the color of a person's skin should not be what determines who they are. Now when it is a time that black people can exercise this principle they chose to ignore it and most all vote for the person who had skin the same color they have. I find that two-faced and cannot for the life of me figure out why Obama would be better for 93% of black people than Romney is. I don't think it is possible for Obama to be better for 93% of black people than Romney when the unemployment rate for blacks is what it is today. I think they voted for Obama because he looks like them and that is the only reason some of them voted for him. Most of them would have been better off to vote for Romney.
The Republican party is what it is and always will be. They were not the problem in this situation. They don't need to change. Blacks need to stop being prejudice against non-blacks.
O. K. I will take a stab at this. For years we have been told that the color of a person's skin should not be what determines who they are. Now when it is a time that black people can exercise this principle they chose to ignore it and most all vote for the person who had skin the same color they have. I find that two-faced and cannot for the life of me figure out why Obama would be better for 93% of black people than Romney is. I don't think it is possible for Obama to be better for 93% of black people than Romney when the unemployment rate for blacks is what it is today. I think they voted for Obama because he looks like them and that is the only reason some of them voted for him. Most of them would have been better off to vote for Romney.
The Republican party is what it is and always will be. They were not the problem in this situation. They don't need to change. Blacks need to stop being prejudice against non-blacks.
Blacks voted for President Obama for the same reason they have voted for other Democratic candidates. And what I have mentioned about the Republican Party are historical facts.
So, prey tell how do you explain black registered Independents, of which I am one, voting Independent and for white men for more than 4 decades? At the end of the day your assumption is not a one size (or in this case race) fits all. It is beyond ignorant to assume that all people of any race voted solely on that premise. Did you vote against Obama because he is black?
Because black independents are the extreme, not the norm. Also, there has never been a black candidate for president before obama. It doesn't change the outcome by more than 12%, but the 98% of afro-Americans who voted for him clearly did so because Obama claimed to be black.
The irony is Obama doesn't really consider himself a black man at all, but a dark skinned politician. He's happy to take the votes anyway possible, but those who voted for him won't likely benefit one penny from it.
The way you were presenting it, it could have been used to say "Blacks turned out in large numbers because a a Black man was running for office". How would I know that wasn't the case? I asked what percentage because my point is that there are alot of people who would have turned out to vote anyway.
The voter turnout was less than it was in 1992...not more...3% less....that's a lot of voters. Yet for some some reason the the black voter turnout set an all time record high....like never before....even though all voter turnout was down 3%. The black voter turnout exceeded the all voter turnout all of a sudden for the first time ever. You didn't answer my question....why do you think that was? You tell me? Is it just coincidental?
I can't say for sure that's it's because of the president's race. I'll tell when I will say it's because of his race....after the 2016 election. I don't for see another black candidate being nominated by either party in 2016 (there could be but, I can't think of any one) so, if both candidates end up being white and the by black voter turnout turnout drops back down to less than the all citizens voter turnout, where it ALWAYS has been...then my I would say "Yes" the black voter turnout for Obama in 2008 was higher because he was black. There's no way I'm going believe that's it's just another coincidence. Time will tell.
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.
