Maryland question 4, 6 & 7 all a "yes!" (Clinton: cabinet, cabin)

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Bush did relatively well with Blacks. If Romney could have matched it he would be President. Still I don't think any candidate would have fared well against Obama with Blacks. I think Black folks denying the racial appeal of Obama to Blacks are not being honest and frankly disingenous. I listen to Black talk radio, am Black as are all my family and most of my friends and what Khemistry says rings true.

Very few could articulate reasons for supporting Obama beyond the GOP was mean to him and didn't give him a chance. What I found is that those who had a grasp on the issues actually sounded like your typical GOP voter.

Also I don't think the argument is that gullibility is exclusive to Blacks but what people both Black and White tend to have a problem with is the sheer monolithic support of Blacks for Obama. It's bizarre since we all come from different backgrounds, regions, classes etc. Presumably these other factors would inform how we vote and you'd see atleast some dissent of Obama based on these factors alone.

Couldn't agree more. I have so many friends and family that would come up with every criticism of Romney as possible, but they would defend Obama to the nth degree. When you start asking them about Obama stance on issues like gay marriage, most of them are like oh yeah I don't agree with that but that's just one issue or he's not the Pastor of the country. Pretty much any excuse they can possibly come up with. I could respect them more if they had legitimate reasons to support him, but when people say stuff like, well Congress tried to stop him from passing a jobs bill without acknowledging that he ignored the jobs bill for 2 years, then credibility goes out the window. Not to get all religious but there are a lot of people that look at Obama as if he's their god. He sets their standard of right and wrong. I'm not saying they would come out literally say he's their god, but I wonder if a white Democrat had come out in support of gay marriage, if there would be the same level of support. Even though PG overall turned down gay marriage, the margin was would have been much larger years ago.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

My issue was that there are blocks of voters in every race who may vote based on race. To be embarrassed for being part of that race for that reason is extreme and unfortunate.

Oh really?

Ohio Romney Rally - Interviews With Supporters

This argument would hold water if Cain was the GOP candidate and Clinton was the Democratic candidate. And blacks overwhelmingly voted AGAINST their party line for Cain. Then I could see that they were voting strictly because of race. So, until we get a black GOP candidate, this argument doesn't hold much weight as a majority of minorities vote overwhelmingly Democratic. And McCain/Palin Romney/Ryan hardly provided any overwhelmingly compelling reason for a lifelong democrat to vote for a GOP candidate. On the other hand, there are white voters who will ALWAYS vote GOP even if their candidate was black. This was nothing more than blacks voting their party line as with Clinton. Just so happens this time the candidate was black.

I seen that video too. It's certainly telling of those group of people you are referring to. I will say, and I'm not sure if this is what EdwardA is trying to explain, but the degrees of how white people support someone like Romney is different than how black people support Obama. Let me put it like this, Obama doesn't get into office unless he has a large section of white people in this country to support him. Now when you turn it around and look at the 95% of black people supporting Obama, it's a huge difference. If 95% of white people supported Romney, we would have a new President. Heck if 70% of white people supported Romney we would still have a new president. It's the degree that it's done, that makes it head-scratching.

[adelphi_sky]

I can see how a largely democratic demographic voting for a democratic candidate can seem.....odd.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

I can see how a largely democratic demographic voting for a democratic candidate can seem.....odd.

That isn't the odd part, the odd part is that same democratic population voted mostly against a social issue that the party is for. If these people were voting strictly on party lines, then same sex marriage would have been favored in PG.

[InvaderBryce]

Dumb Argument #2: Homosexuality is contagious.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

That isn't the odd part, the odd part is that same democratic population voted mostly against a social issue that the party is for. If these people were voting strictly on party lines, then same sex marriage would have been favored in PG.

There are liberal democrats and there are conservative democrats. There are liberal republicans and there are conservative republicans. There are left, moderate, and right leaning democrats and there are left, moderate, and right leaning republicans. To say that same-sex marriage is a democratic platform is to paint all democrats with a broad brush. That's what republicans usually do. Yes, more democrats may be in favor of same-sex marriage than republicans, but that hardly means that all democrats are expected to agree on a single issue. You forget, as far as religion is concerned, both republicans and democrats may vote the same on an issue which is what you have witnessed as far as same-sex marriage. It's not about race or political party. In this case, it was more about religious beliefs which most often supersedes political affiliation.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

There are liberal democrats and there are conservative democrats. There are liberal republicans and there are conservative republicans. There are left, moderate, and right leaning democrats and there are left, moderate, and right leaning republicans. To say that same-sex marriage is a democratic platform is to paint all democrats with a broad brush. That's what republicans usually do. Yes, more democrats may be in favor of same-sex marriage than republicans, but that hardly means that all democrats are expected to agree on a single issue. You forget, as far as religion is concerned, both republicans and democrats may vote the same on an issue which is what you have witnessed as far as same-sex marriage. It's not about race or political party. In this case, it was more about religious beliefs which most often supersedes political affiliation.

You are missing a HUGE, HUGE point because you are so focus on proving everyone wrong. The voting pattern is indicative of what are perceived as the values of black culture, and is not consistent with the Democratic platform. If there were such varying degrees of Democrats in PG, then why would so many overwhelmingly vote for Obama? There were some registered Democrats that voted against him. If we are looking at it from a democratic perspective, then the results are inconsistent but if you look at it from a black culture perspective, the results are consistent to what those perceived values are.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

You are missing a HUGE, HUGE point because you are so focus on proving everyone wrong. The voting pattern is indicative of what are perceived as the values of black culture, and is not consistent with the Democratic platform. If there were such varying degrees of Democrats in PG, then why would so many overwhelmingly vote for Obama?

I dunno. Maybe because they are Democrats?

There were some registered Democrats that voted against him.

Yes. But Obama, as a president, is a very popular president. So, a Democrat voting against their party line with such a popular Democratic president is doing so for a very personal reason on a particular issue. There are republicans that exist who voted for Obama.

If we are looking at it from a democratic perspective, then the results are inconsistent

Not on a state ballot issue. You can have varying results between national elections and local ballots.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

Yes. But Obama, as a president, is a very popular president. So, a Democrat voting against their party line with such a popular Democratic president is doing so for a very personal reason on a particular issue. There are republicans that exist who voted for Obama.

He's also popular with black people. You aren't really proving why EdwardA's theory is wrong. Your theory has more holes in it. The fact that a county could overwhelmingly vote Obama but then turn down same-sex marriage, speaks to race. Look at how Montgomery County, which is also very Democratic, voted for same sex marriage and explain why the two counties aren't consistent with how they voted if people weren't voting based on their cultural views?

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

Not on a state ballot issue. You can have varying results between national elections and local ballots.

Are we still talking about PG? I thought we were talking about PG? Did I miss something?

[Tom Lennox 70]

Honestly I'm not too upset about gay mariage passing. Especially since they also succeeded in Minnesota, Maine, and Washington state so it doesnt' make us come across as radical liberals. But I am incensed an disappointed about the illegal alien Dream Act passing. Hardly anyone I know here in eastern Baltimore County supports it and nobody can believe it passed. Must be the liberal elites of Montgomery and HOward Counties plus the ethnic racist vote plus voter fraud by illegal aliens. These poeple are ILLEGAL. A lot of the people who support illegal immigration are ethnic racists who want to stick a midle figner out to mainstream America, and many are also radical liberals and unreconstructed hippies.

And after years of tax hikes, including the income tax, tolls, alcohol tax, cigarette tax, and flush tax we still vote Democrat. I was born in Louisiana, and down there, someone in public office knew that if they raised taxes, they or their party will be punished in the next election. Not so in Maryland! And with redistricting, I wonder how a liberal elitist, Starbucks drinking slimeball from POTOMAC can reprsent Western Maryland. I'm sure John Delaney really snubs his nose and looks at Western Marylanders with elitist derision and scorn as typical for a East Coast liberal like himself. Any Western Marylander who voted against Bartlett voted against the interets of their communities and neighbors. The liberal elite Delaney will most likely promote things like urban development and reject things like natural gas development which would benefit Western Maryland.