'African Americans For Obama'

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by classicman

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]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

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]

Originally Posted by classicman

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:

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]

I found this

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]

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

[Happy Monkey]

How about "Jews Pick Rick"?

[it]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

How about "Jews Pick Rick"?

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

[Rhianne]

Originally Posted by Sundae

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]

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.