The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   'African Americans For Obama' (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26949)

classicman 02-26-2012 08:05 PM

'African Americans For Obama'
 
Quote:

In the latest push to energize and engage black voters, President Barack Obama's reelection campaign
this morning launched African Americans for Obama, with a video introduction from the president himself.

"This month we are announcing the 2012 launch of African Americans for Obama," the president announced
in the video provided to The Huffington Post by the campaign.

Over the past few months, the campaign and the White House have made a stronger push to reconnect
with the black community, after a long summer and fall during which critics lambasted the president for not doing enough
to mend the wealth gap between blacks and whites or end the double-digit unemployment rates for African Americans.
Link
Are you freakin kidding me? Maybe its just me, but I think this is BS.
Can you imagine "White Americans for Romney" or "Gringos for Gingrich"

classicman 02-26-2012 10:39 PM

Oh boy . . .

Happy Monkey 02-27-2012 11:28 AM

Given the current phenomenon of white men claiming to be an oppressed minority because they don't have as much of an advantage anymore, I can imagine it easily.

Sundae 02-27-2012 11:36 AM

Like those poor beleagured Christians unable to say "Merry Christmas" any more.

dmg1969 02-27-2012 11:50 AM

It wouldn't be that bad if it wasn't for the knowledge that quite a few of those who voted for him the first time did so for no other reason than that he was black. And spare me the "well you voted against him because he was black" rhetoric. I voted against him because of his policies.

infinite monkey 02-27-2012 11:58 AM

So you know ('for the knowledge') that black people who voted for Obama did so ('for NO OTHER REASON than') because he was black, but you know that YOU voted against him not because of race but because of politics.

Care to cite the stats of all the people who voted for him because he was black, solely because he was black, and not anything to do with his politics?

:cool:

Sundae 02-27-2012 12:02 PM

Still, at least it means he'll get in again.
Because he's still black, right?

infinite monkey 02-27-2012 12:02 PM

If those damn lazy blacks remember to get off their asses and vote!

Sundae 02-27-2012 12:04 PM

Is it watermelon season?

glatt 02-27-2012 12:07 PM

I think Obama excited people who ordinarily don't vote. And this was especially true in the black community.

It's pretty well established that Republicans are in the minority, but they vote consistently. Democrats are in the majority, but they are just as likely to stay home as to vote. That's why Republics are always opposed to any effort to get out the vote. Because those efforts overwhelmingly support the Democrats.

Whenever the weather is bad on election day, Republicans do better. When it's sunny and turnout is high, Democrats do well.

So yeah, there are a lot of people who voted for Obama because he is black. That excited them, and they voted, and they were Democrats.

Spexxvet 02-27-2012 12:24 PM

I can't speak for DMG, but there are a lot of white folks who voted against Obama solely because he is black, and want him out of office solely because he is black.

dmg1969 02-27-2012 01:07 PM

i.m. I cannot cite any specific stats because I highly doubt that anyone would admit it. Well, forgive me, someone did. Here's a recent example. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hes-black.html

Although he is one example, I would imagine that there are many others who felt likewise. What is many? More than 10 and fewer than a million? I don't know, but you cannot deny that a certain percentage of blacks who voted for Obama did so based on race. And what I said was "quite a few" not all as insinuated by you.

I think Glatt is probably correct about Obama exciting people who would not normally vote. However, one cannot simply ask the question of whether those same people would have felt compelled to vote for Obama if he was white.

I appreciated Glatt's reply because it didn't immediately paint me as a racist for asking a question like others (watermelon, lazy blacks?) Come on folks...not everyone who doesn't like Obama is a racist.

And Spex, you are right. 100%. There are those who did NOT vote for Obama because he was black. I don't have stats for that either, but I do not argue it in the least. And I have as big a problem with someone NOT voting for him based on his race as I do with someone VOTING for him based on it.

Sundae 02-27-2012 01:13 PM

DMG, the Hate Mail is not a viable source on anything.
And no-one was accusing you of being racist. Just asking how you were so confident that other people voted due to skin colour, when you were adamant that you didn't.

classicman 02-27-2012 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 797979)
So you know ('for the knowledge') that black people who voted for Obama did so ('for NO OTHER REASON than') because he was black.

Care to cite the stats of all the people who voted for him because he was black, solely because he was black, and not anything to do with his politics?

Snark begets snark ...
Quote:

When Ebony asked actor Samuel L. Jackson where he stood, his answer raised some eyebrows. Obama's "message didn't mean sh*t to me," Jackson said, according to the New York Post. "I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do." Implying that Obama has not yet been able to behave like a "scary" "n*gga," Jackson said he hopes Obama will be more "scary" in his second term, "cuz he ain't gotta worry about getting re-elected." "I voted for Barack because he was black," Jackson said. "Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them."


ETA - Changed link - this sword cuts both ways.

infinite monkey 02-27-2012 01:25 PM

Snark? Fuck you and your snark.

I posed a legitimate question.
And, what Sundae said.

Sundae 02-27-2012 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 798013)
Changed link - this sword cuts both ways.

It proves the concept introduced in the link: the majority of people know shit about politics.
Which is as true here as there.

At least the people interviewed know who Obama is. I'm ashamed to say a similar vox pop in my town might not be able to identify Cameron or Clegg or their politic parties, let alone separate policies.
Dani might appear now to tell me off about my pessimism in respect of the English electorate.

classicman 02-27-2012 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 798020)
Snark? Fuck you and your snark.
I posed a legitimate question.

And I you know ('for the knowledge') posted a legitimate answer regarding
"('for NO OTHER REASON than') he's black" with cites.

I wonder how many voted simply on race for vs. against. Did those people who voted
primarily because of race just cancel each other out like those who vote straight ticket D or R.
Then again glatt says that there are more D's than R's but more R's vote.
hmm.

glatt 02-27-2012 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 798025)
Then again glatt says that there are more D's than R's but more R's vote.
hmm.

I was looking for support of my statement and found this, but couldn't be bothered to read it all.

http://myweb.fsu.edu/bgomez/GomezHan...e_JOP_2007.pdf

They looked at weather impacts on elections and saw that it was really complicated but that the following can be shown:
Quote:

The results of the zero precipitation scenarios
reveal only two instances in which a perfectly dry election
day would have changed an Electoral College
outcome. Dry elections would have led Bill Clinton to
win North Carolina in 1992 and Al Gore to win
Florida in 2000. This latter change in the allocation of
Florida’s electors would have swung the incredibly
close 2000 election in Gore’s favor.

classicman 02-27-2012 02:13 PM

I found this
Quote:

Far more Americans favor Democrats over Republicans. For decades, the number of Americans identifying as Democrats or calling themselves independent but leaning Democratic has far exceeded the share of Republicans and Republican leaners. That gap has persisted, even in landslide Republican years like 1984 and 1994.

So why don't Democrats perform better in national elections? Why have Democrats won only four of 10 presidential races since 1972?

A new report for Third Way, the moderate Democratic group, posits an answer: the ideological disconnect between liberal party activists and moderate party voters. In "Family Feud: Democratic Activists v. Democratic Voters," Todd Eberly, a political scientist at St. Mary's College in Maryland, examined data from the American National Election Studies and focused on the striking divide among Democrats.

In the 10 presidential elections since 1972, Democratic activists -- those who attended a campaign event and donated money -- rated themselves an average of 3.06 on a 7-point liberal-to-conservative ideological scale, with 4 being "moderate." By contrast, those who merely identify as Democrats or lean that way were significantly closer to the center, an average of 3.77.

This "ideological gulf," Eberly argues, coincides with -- and helps explain -- decreased party loyalty. Since 1970, Democratic-leaning independents have increased from fewer than one in five members of the Democratic coalition to one in three. This shifting composition makes a difference.
More at the link. Good read.

it 02-27-2012 02:42 PM

isn't this a little redundant? don't most US minorities vote democrat anyway?

Happy Monkey 02-27-2012 03:08 PM

How about "Jews Pick Rick"?

it 02-27-2012 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 798047)
How about "Jews Pick Rick"?

we don't count, we have money... ok technically other jews have money (left me behind bastards!)

Rhianne 02-27-2012 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae (Post 798022)
At least the people interviewed know who Obama is. I'm ashamed to say a similar vox pop in my town might not be able to identify Cameron or Clegg or their politic parties, let alone separate policies.

Who or what is this 'Clegg' you speak of?

And Cameron, well, it's not as if he's all that important, Her Maj does all the real work, doesn't she.

bluecuracao 02-27-2012 06:06 PM

Around the time of the last democratic nomination and presidential election, I was taking a bus to work where almost all of my fellow riders were black. Everyone (including myself) was very excited about Obama and the elections.

My sense was that the support on that bus wasn't as simple as "just because he's black." It was more of an issue of being able to identify with this particular candidate, and feeling like at last, someone like me will make such an important mark in history and I/we will have our voices heard.

There were actually a few people out of the bus group who were voting for Obama over Hillary Clinton because of his GENDER. According to them, the bible says that women have no place taking leadership over men, or something stupid like that.

If Santorum hadn't made that crack about black people and welfare, he might have been able to get support from bible-thumpers of all colors.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.