If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, Herman Cain may serve as a bad example, but the combination of a black presidential nominee AND his democratic party affiliation may explain record minority voter turn out in 2008. I think this provides some merit to Hyfi's argument. Do I really need to reference a specific source here?

Yes, I would like for you to reference a specific source that says all black people who voted for Obama did so because of his race. Black people are not stupid. His message of hope and change must have resonated with them as much as his race did, or Herman Cain would have gotten the same kind of support from Black folks.

Not one of HiFy links point to Obama race as being the driving force for black to vote for him. But this was said of his support by blacks

Obama's opposition to the Iraq war and plans to revive the economy were part of his appeal to blacks, along with "the emotional component" of helping him make history.

Did anyone see race in any of that?

[dingus]

I'm rational enough to know that if the car is headed for a cliff to turn the wheel, even if I'm not 100% sure where it's gonna go.

rather than head in another direction without know where you are going, the rational action would be to apply the brakes and stop the car. even though your analogy has no correlation to your ability to rationalize, i do appreciate the admission that you havent got a clue.

[Feanor]

Hey, another point for the question are we better of than 4 years ago.

In September of 08, the market crashed and I lost lots of money like everyone else.

Exactly who was the President in September of 2008?

Yeah, that's right, GW Bushwacker was the President and now 4 years after the current President inherited that mess, where is the market? At an all time high!

So why does the Romney camp keep asking that question and saying we are worse off now when his own party was the problem and cause of the whole reason people did become worse off as an effect of the Republicans? You would think that his Math Wiz running mate could do the 4 year math problem and realize the answer was Bush, not Obama being the president when we all became worse off.

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?" The Republicans aren't looking for reasoned response, they want a "gut" response -- and they're hoping for it from a lot of those 47% that Romney denounced as freeloaders.

[texlle]

Yes, I would like for you to reference a specific source that says all black people who voted for Obama did so because of his race. Black people are not stupid. His message of hope and change must have resonated with them as much as his race did, or Herman Cain would have gotten the same kind of support from Black folks.

Not one of HiFy links point to Obama race as being the driving force for black to vote for him. But this was said of his support by blacks




Did anyone see race in any of that?

Good lord, you're taking my quote way way out of context here. I am not by any means whatsoever saying black people are stupid, nor am I saying Obama's race was responsible for every minority vote in the 2008 election. Although, I am inferring that much of the difference between the 2008 minority voter turn out and every single election year previously since the 15th amendment was enacted, was attributed by Obama's race.

[markw]

rather than head in another direction without know where you are going, the rational action would be to apply the brakes and stop the car. even though your analogy has no correlation to your ability to rationalize, i do appreciate the admission that you havent got a clue.

As you know, this jalopyn has no brakes. It's gonna keep on going. Now,if you have some wa to stop it, please share or at least admit that you think trying to be cuts shows intelligence. Trust me, it doesn't. It just shows desperation.

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

[dingus]

As you know, this jalopyn has no brakes. It's gonna keep on going. Now,if you have some wa to stop it, please share or at least admit that you think trying to be cuts shows intelligence. Trust me, it doesn't. It just shows desperation.

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

it was your stupid analogy, you might have stipulated the brakes when you first forwarded it, or were you making it retroactive like Mitt did with his retirement from Bain? i'd like to respond to the rest of your post, but just like your views on the topics being discussed in this thread, its largely indecipherable.

[noddin0ff]

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."

And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[markw]

it was your stupid analogy, you might have stipulated the brakes when you first forwarded it, or were you making it retroactive like Mitt did with his retirement from Bain? i'd like to respond to the rest of your post, but just like your views on the topics being discussed in this thread, its largely indecipherable.

That's the best you've got? You try to twist a clear analogy to try to make a point and think you're clever? ...and then get all huffy when yo're called on it? Ha!

Well, that explains why the rest was incomprehensible to you. I've been trying to talk sense to moron who hasn't a clue on the way tis whole thing works.

We're done, dingles. Have fun. Try again when you've got a clue.

[dingus]

That's the best you've got? You try to twist a clear analogy to try to make a point and think you're clever? ...and then get all huffy when yo're called on it? Ha!

Well, that explains why the rest was incomprehensible to you. I've been trying to talk sense to moron who hasn't a clue on the way tis whole thing works.

We're done, dingles. Have fun. Try again when you've got a clue.

you should have quit when you weren't so far behind...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good lord, you're taking my quote way way out of context here. I am not by any means whatsoever saying black people are stupid, nor am I saying Obama's race was responsible for every minority vote in the 2008 election. Although, I am inferring that much of the difference between the 2008 minority voter turn out and every single election year previously since the 15th amendment was enacted, was attributed by Obama's race.

Good Lord, you need to prove your inference, or it is nothing more than something you crapped out of your bum, and on to this page. Make a one on one comparison that each black person who voted for Obama did so because of the color of his skin. Discount that Obama team voter registration efforts did not reflect minority voter participation as opposed to his race.

Here is the reality my friend. Obama's team was just better at voter registration at all levels, and that was the major reason for a high minority voter turn out. Nobody in history has courted minorities or the young like Obama's team has. That is a fact. Ignore that reality in favor of race, then you have to provide proof that race played a major role in minority voter turn out. Otherwise, you think the black vote is monolithic, narrow minded, and ignorant.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."



For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?

+1 x 10,000. No wait, x 40,000.

[texlle]

Good Lord, you need to prove your inference, or it is nothing more than something you crapped out of your bum, and on to this page. Make a one on one comparison that each black person who voted for Obama did so because of the color of his skin. Discount that Obama team voter registration efforts did not reflect minority voter participation as opposed to his race.

Here is the reality my friend. Obama's team was just better at voter registration at all levels, and that was the major reason for a high minority voter turn out. Nobody in history has courted minorities or the young like Obama's team has. That is a fact. Ignore that reality in favor of race, then you have to provide proof that race played a major role in minority voter turn out. Otherwise, you think the black vote is monolithic, narrow minded, and ignorant.

Sure makes you wonder exactly why the 08 Obama campaign focused so heavily on reaching out to the minority populous. Though I don't see the basis of being "better at voter registration" as ANY more substantial than the manner in which you regard mine. It's not your concern though, as a 1%-er, as you have reminded us numerous times. Must be good for your ego, which seems to be the only truth you've presented thus far.

[Feanor]

"In the long run we are all dead" ~ John Maynard Keynes

Before we worry too much about the debt we're leaving to our children, we & the kids need to survive 'till tomorrow. Austerity, such as we see in Greece, Spain, and the UK, is slowing those economies to a crawl. For one thing, slowing economies generate less government revenue, making it even harder to service debt. The Republican concept of deep spending cuts and no tax increases is austerity and will have the same effect in the USA.

Despite high debt, Britain, Japan, and the USA continued to enjoy low interest rates because their debts are denominated in their own currencies -- and creditors know they need never default. The Greek and Spanish situation is different and default is quite possible because their debt is in Euros, not their own sovereign currencies.

But also note that in the USA there is a statutory debt ceiling so that conceivably the USA might have to refuse to honor obligations even though it could. This law is completely ludicrous and there is practically no other country in the world that has such a law.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sure makes you wonder exactly why the 08 Obama campaign focused so heavily on reaching out to the minority populous. Though I don't see the basis of being "better at voter registration" as ANY more substantial than the manner in which you regard mine. It's not your concern though, as a 1%-er, as you have reminded us numerous times. Must be good for your ego, which seems to be the only truth you've presented thus far.

You are not very bright if you cannot figure this out. He focused on reaching out to minorities because he understood from his days in Chicago that most politicians dismiss this voting block as insignificant. If you didn't see the basis for Obama better at voter registration, then you are as blind as a bat. Let's look at some facts here. In 2004, there were 55 million unregistered voters - mostly minorities based on the research of the National Research Committee. 55 million that have not committed to either party. It is easy to see why Obama wanted to tap into a group that did not participate in the process.

Now let's address your claims. In a October 2008 NBC/Wallstreet poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Obama. 4% said were less likely, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the remaining 92%

20% of AA voters and 8% of white voters considered race the single most important factor. That means 80% of AA, and 92% of whites did not think race was all that important.

17% where enthusiastic about Obama being the first AA(or mixed President, 70% did not care, and 13% had reservations about his race.

Based on this example, you race argument falls flat on its face. So your claims are as I have said, basically between your own ears. There is nothing truly factual about them.

Lastly, if you read my comments regarding the 1%, you would have kept your silly ignorant clap trap to yourself. You are a prime example of jealously of the 1%, which is pretty damn counterproductive. I paid my own way through college in cash by getting a damn job(no loans whatsoever), got my degree in a field I was passionate about, succeeded in it, spent and invested my money wisely, inherited a few dilapidated properties I fixed up(not to mention the ones I have purchased myself), open my own post production studio(which is doing VERY well), and set my kids up so they could benefit from what I built. I pay ALL of my taxes, do not seek any kind of shelter or hidden deductions, and I firmly believe(as I have stated numerous times) that I should pay more taxes to help benefit the country that has been so very good to me. So don't cowardly like throw my success in my face, I earned mine by hard work. Maybe going in the future, you should sit down(like I did) and figure out your passion, and turn it into success like I did. This would be far more beneficial to you than to try to paint me with a negative brush. I have nothing to be ashamed of, but you sure in the hell do. Not one damn thing was given to me that I did not in some way earn. Your comments wreak of being a sore loser, and a immature jealous fool.

[markw]

you should have quit when you weren't so far behind...

Well,when it comes to behinds I guess you're the expert. You've shown me that your ignorance knows no bounds.

[markw]

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."



For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?

To put this in perspective, public sector mean the workers to be paid by taxpayer money. They are not paid by any profits generated. The more there are, the more tax money is needed.

Where does the government get this money? They don't generate profits, do they?

Unless the job market is self-sustaining, or private sector with workers paid from the profits of business, it's another form of a government subsidy. Where are these private sector jobs? I guess you are all fortunate in that nobody in your circle of friends is ready, willing, and able to find work, or is forced to work at below their potential.

And, as for that stimlus money, many foreign countries did well with it but yet I know many skilled workers who would kill for an opportunity at these jobs.

So,where are these private sector jobs.

As for "shovel ready" jobs, I don't kow about the rest of the vcountry, but here they all went to companies that are unionized and their hiring is closed. So, how is that not a payback for votes?

As for stimilus monies, why is GM, who we,the taxpayers bailed out building a new plant in mexico to employ 1,000 workers when there's many more unemployed American taxpayers that could use those jobs?

Likewise, here' another 570 jobs created in Mexico thanks to Chrysler. That's their 6th plant there.

Gee, that's some thanks for the bailout, guys. Why not take our money AND send our jobs out?

...and they come up here for free medical care!

But, if you say the labor rate is cheaper there, why are we using taxpayer dollars to keep the overpaid union workers in jobs? They had no qualms about forcibly raping the secured bondolders for pennies on the dollar when the takeover went down. Why not the workers as well? Could it be simply another payback for votes and, in effect, they are simply another taxpayer-funded job in disguise while the real profits are made (and kept) out of the country? If it's not profitable, why keep them on life support? That's against the principles of Obamacare' deat panels.

GM is already half moved to Cina and it's only a matter of time before we're inconsequential.

...all this and more by obama's hand.

I could go on but, if you've got any concern for your fellow Ameicans, you can see were this is going. The money that is suppoed to help us is helping everyone BUT us.

[texlle]

You are not very bright if you cannot figure this out. He focused on reaching out to minorities because he understood from his days in Chicago that most politicians dismiss this voting block as insignificant. If you didn't see the basis for Obama better at voter registration, then you are as blind as a bat. Let's look at some facts here. In 2004, there were 55 million unregistered voters - mostly minorities based on the research of the National Research Committee. 55 million that have not committed to either party. It is easy to see why Obama wanted to tap into a group that did not participate in the process.

Now let's address your claims. In a October 2008 NBC/Wallstreet poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Obama. 4% said were less likely, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the remaining 92%

20% of AA voters and 8% of white voters considered race the single most important factor. That means 80% of AA, and 92% of whites did not think race was all that important.

17% where enthusiastic about Obama being the first AA(or mixed President, 70% did not care, and 13% had reservations about his race.

Based on this example, you race argument falls flat on its face. So your claims are as I have said, basically between your own ears. There is nothing truly factual about them.

Lastly, if you read my comments regarding the 1%, you would have kept your silly ignorant clap trap to yourself. You are a prime example of jealously of the 1%, which is pretty damn counterproductive. I paid my own way through college in cash by getting a damn job(no loans whatsoever), got my degree in a field I was passionate about, succeeded in it, spent and invested my money wisely, inherited a few dilapidated properties I fixed up(not to mention the ones I have purchased myself), open my own post production studio(which is doing VERY well), and set my kids up so they could benefit from what I built. I pay ALL of my taxes, do not seek any kind of shelter or hidden deductions, and I firmly believe(as I have stated numerous times) that I should pay more taxes to help benefit the country that has been so very good to me. So don't cowardly like throw my success in my face, I earned mine by hard work. Maybe going in the future, you should sit down(like I did) and figure out your passion, and turn it into success like I did. This would be far more beneficial to you than to try to paint me with a negative brush. I have nothing to be ashamed of, but you sure in the hell do. Not one damn thing was given to me that I did not in some way earn. Your comments wreak of being a sore loser, and a immature jealous fool.

Terrence, I don't need to prove my accomplishments to you. I'm glad you feel that your success grants you justification to **** on anyone you don't know. It just makes your argument that you are an honest, civil individual that much more laughable. I just found it funny that you tend to refer to yourself rather than referring to the collective 1% whenever possible. I did not imply a deeper meaning, though that didn't stop you from constructing one and defending your lifelong achievements. Bravo. Markw's method of replacing civil debate with puerile belittling has influenced you well to be able to even associate with lowly morons like the rest of us non-achievers. You look just like old man Lebowski right about now, if you get the reference.

Let's begin with your YOUR source. NBC. Certainly the least biased media outlet from which one can gather data, right? Ha. I'd like to put your mention of voter percentage to use since you failed to do so by following it (though not comparing it) with a completely different ****ing statistic! And you have the nerve to relentlessly insult MY intelligence? Anyway, here are some stats from census.gov.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

There was a 5 million registered voter increase between 2004 and 2008. Of those, roughly 2 million were black. This correlates to a 4.7% increase in black votes, as shown in the data. Of blacks who voted, those aged 18-24 saw an increase of 8.3% which was unprecedented for this specific demographic in election history. As far as proving that this increase is directly resultant of this demographic's preference for a candidate's race is murky. Why were registered black voters so heavily courted? Simply because they showed a relatively low rate of involvement?

Here's an interesting study that attempts to correlate the efficacy of campaign mobilization (calls, knocking on doors, public speeches, etc) on increased black voter turnout.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/tsp228/w...%20McGowen.pdf

Though the many, many variables (group identity, interest) and themes compared in this study can be inconclusive in corroborating the scientist's hypothesis of the effect of campaign mobilization on black voter turnout, it can be argued that the presence of a black candidate can lead to an increase in black voter turnout.

A related strand of research looks at political participation when a Black
candidate is on the ballot and largely confirms the Black empowerment literature.
For instance, a precinct-level analysis of Cook County, IL elections in
1998 demonstrated that “the African-American residual vote rate in electoral
contests with black candidates is less than half the rate in contests without
black candidates” (Herron and Sekhon 2005, 154). Similarly, Atkins, DeZee,
and Eckert (1985), who also use aggregate data, found that in a low-salience,
nonpartisan election featuring a Black candidate, turnout in Black precincts
was on average higher than it was during a comparable election with twoWhite
candidates.

Notice that these studies posit—more or less explicitly—a model of turnout.
Black candidates increase political interest among Black voters, which increases
a sense of shared racial identity and the desire to support someone from
one’s own group, which increases voting. The presence of a Black candidate
may also increase Blacks’ sense of political efficacy, which has an additional
independent and positive effect on turnout. Given this model, it is not surprising
that other research finds that racial identification and other race-relevant considerations
are significant predictors of self-reported voting (Tate 1993; Chong
and Rogers 2005).

To sum, race-relevant considerations appear to significantly influence Black
voter turnout during elections in which an African American is seeking elected
office. That’s not to say, however, that race-relevant considerations are the
only predictors of voter turnout in these circumstances. For example, membership
to Black civic and religious organizations consistently matter as well
(Gurin, Hatchett, and Jackson 1989; Tate 1993; Dawson 1994). But whether
our hypothesis is correct—that contact by political parties might also be an
important factor in boosting Black voter turnout in elections featuring Black
candidates—has yet to be examined with data from 2008.

It can be proven that ideologies and interests central to the black voting populous give rise to a cohesiveness among black voters. That their achieved greater presence in American politics since the days of civil rights pioneering correlates to a heightened interest in voting among blacks to further common interests.

Regarding your NBC poll, few people truly admit to racial bias. It's a fact. Most surveying agencies don't rely on the credibility of such reported data.

However, I do find it interesting that lately Obama has been personally appearing at Hispanic and female oriented events, but has sent Joe Biden to events largely attended by blacks, in some cases represented by the NAACP. Some might say he thinks he has the black vote in the bag, but I will continue to question the validity of that, while relying on quantifiable evidence that may merely point in that direction.

[Feanor]

...
Now let's address your claims. In a October 2008 NBC/Wallstreet poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Obama. 4% said were less likely, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the remaining 92%

20% of AA voters and 8% of white voters considered race the single most important factor. That means 80% of AA, and 92% of whites did not think race was all that important.

17% where enthusiastic about Obama being the first AA(or mixed President, 70% did not care, and 13% had reservations about his race.
...

But bear in mind that what people say conditions their vote and what actually conditions their vote are two different things.

People are aware of what is presently politically correct and that is what they tend to say in polls, etc., to avoid public disapprobation. However what they actually feel and how they will act or vote when nobody is looking, is another matter. (BTW, I've been an unusually candid person all my life and it has got me into a lot of trouble.)

[RGA]

Personally I don't think it matters much if a segment of people vote for a politician based on race - for every black person who voted for Obama because he's black there were probably 4 people who would not vote for Obama simply because he's black.

As I said earlier in the post - people of "ultra" religious faith will vote Republican - it does not matter what the facts re or the money or job markets or whatever.

If a right wing Christian voter lost his job under a Romney presidency and Romney LAUGHED at him and TOLD him he was happy about moving the job to China the right wing voter would STILL vote for Romney...

There is no fact or number or argument or logic that will EVER sway a right wing voter to vote democrat - PERIOD.

No one of good morality or social conscience on the left could ever vote for Romney. The right wing is immoral and filled with hate evidence here - and the right wing son of a Veteran will STILL vote Romney.

[texlle]

Well Obama would have won the popular vote anyway even if he had the turnout that John Kerry did in 2004. The likelihood of and rationale behind members of an ethnic group who vote for a political candidate of the same ethnic background is a topic that I find particularly interesting. That's all.

Feanor, I was reading another study where a group tried to eliminate the untruthful answering bias in determining how important race was in a voter's decision by state by using commonly searched google keywords per region. The internet is one of the few places where one can express racist sentiments without coming under hostile criticism. The study counted the number of times certain words were searched in google (the n-word was a big one). Apparently, Southern Mississippi and upstate New York were two of the most "racist" states found.

[noddin0ff]

Where does the government get this money? They don't generate profits, do they?

I admit to struggling with the technical details but here's my take on where money comes from: The dollar stork.

Ok. no. The government gets money by printing it then loaning it out or paying for stuff with it and then collecting it back in taxes. Actually, they don't technically need to collect it back in taxes or even have to go through the effort of printing it. All they do is add a number. To paraphrase from Wiki, if the Fed wants to increase the supply of money it buys stuff (e.g. Treasury Bonds) from banks in exchange for dollars. In making this purchase, the Fed credits the banks 'reserve' account (ie. an account the bank has with the Fed). No money is transferred. It is simply a credit. A number is changed in the banks balance and BAM, PRESTO, SHAZAM money is created de novo. Hard to believe, isn't it.

Summary: Money is made by the Government from thin air to buy stuff the Gov't wants.

To put this in perspective, public sector mean the workers to be paid by taxpayer money. They are not paid by any profits generated. The more there are, the more tax money is needed.

Ok. profit is a ridiculous concept to apply to the Gov't, it's just wrong-headed to think that way for reasons I've put forth already. However, yes, we use tax money to allocate resources for things we want. It is true that if we printed new money for everything that our hearts desire, then money would be worthless. We tax and therefor there is a cost associated with our allocation decisions. That's why we want to make good ones. However, if we need it, we can buy it with magic money. My opinion is we need to buy jobs.

I value government services. I vote for people who value the services I value. I pay taxes for those services. I don't want services cut for multiple reasons. The big one currently is because cutting government services results in people getting fired and those people happen to be doing things I care about like teaching, putting out fires, building roads, running our courts, maintaining the rule of law, preserving our natural resources, etc. etc. and other Gov't stuff.

I agree more tax money is needed. I think we have had irresponsible tax breaks, primarily favoring the very well off, that should be reversed and I think trickle-down economics is a crock of sh*t. But the problem right now is jobs. Not tax revenue.

Unless the job market is self-sustaining, or private sector with workers paid from the profits of business, it's another form of a government subsidy. Where are these private sector jobs? I guess you are all fortunate in that nobody in your circle of friends is ready, willing, and able to find work, or is forced to work at below their potential.

We let go at least 10% of our group this year due to lack of funds. I count myself fortunate to still have a job. I would work below my potential, absolutely. However, our sector tends to lag a few years behind the trends so I expect that more layoffs are coming and we'll be slower to recover them.

Beyond that I can't figure out what you point is. If the Gov't builds a road, private contractors build it. If Medicare pays doctor bills, private doctors see the patient. If a retiree spends his Social Security check it's likely going to pay private sector people for services. I don't count any of that as a subsidy. I see it as taxes performing public good and providing civil services. People pay people for stuff.

And, as for that stimlus money, many foreign countries did well with it but yet I know many skilled workers who would kill for an opportunity at these jobs.

So,where are these private sector jobs.

As for "shovel ready" jobs, I don't kow about the rest of the vcountry, but here they all went to companies that are unionized and their hiring is closed. So, how is that not a payback for votes?

As for stimilus monies, why is GM, who we,the taxpayers bailed out building a new plant in mexico to employ 1,000 workers when there's many more unemployed American taxpayers that could use those jobs?

Likewise, here' another 570 jobs created in Mexico thanks to Chrysler. That's their 6th plant there.

Gee, that's some thanks for the bailout, guys. Why not take our money AND send our jobs out?

...and they come up here for free medical care!

But, if you say the labor rate is cheaper there, why are we using taxpayer dollars to keep the overpaid union workers in jobs? They had no qualms about forcibly raping the secured bondolders for pennies on the dollar when the takeover went down. Why not the workers as well? Could it be simply another payback for votes and, in effect, they are simply another taxpayer-funded job in disguise while the real profits are made (and kept) out of the country? If it's not profitable, why keep them on life support? That's against the principles of Obamacare' deat panels.

GM is already half moved to Cina and it's only a matter of time before we're inconsequential.

...all this and more by obama's hand.

I could go on but, if you've got any concern for your fellow Ameicans, you can see were this is going. The money that is suppoed to help us is helping everyone BUT us.

I am concerned about my fellow Americans. That's why I believe we should be spending to keep them working, educated, healthy and safe. That's why I believe in social safety nets and universal health care.

Certainly I can see why you are angry here. You seem to be both anti union and anti business. And, I don't see how Obama is responsible for GM's corporate decisions. Or how Obama is responsible for workers exercising their right to unionize. Or how Obama is responsible for people wanting to come to the US for a better life. I wasn't a fan of either the auto or the financial bailout on principle, but when compared to the collapse of a large portion of the US auto industry or the world banking system it was the right choice. With perfect hindsight it could've been done better, but that's hindsight for you.

[Worf101]

Well Obama would have won the popular vote anyway even if he had the turnout that John Kerry did in 2004. The likelihood of and rationale behind members of an ethnic group who vote for a political candidate of the same ethnic background is a topic that I find particularly interesting. That's all.

Feanor, I was reading another study where a group tried to eliminate the untruthful answering bias in determining how important race was in a voter's decision by state by using commonly searched google keywords per region. The internet is one of the few places where one can express racist sentiments without coming under hostile criticism. The study counted the number of times certain words were searched in google (the n-word was a big one). Apparently, Southern Mississippi and upstate New York were two of the most "racist" states found.

I've lived and worked in "upstate New York" most of my adult life. When I wasn't here I was in the service or working briefly in North Carolina.... I've told people for years that there are "more Confederate flags in upstate New York than most Southern States". I've worked in the north and the south, only in the Adirondack Region of NY was I openly called "ni**er", "sambo", everything but a child of god by people in passing cars. They have a deep felt and genuine hate for black people "up there" which I find all the more hilarious because there are few minorities up there! It's not like Blacks were leaving the citites in droves to come to Glens Falls, Chili or Harrisville NY and pissing people off up there. We're not particularly big fans of snow and cold.

My experiences were primarily during the 70's and early 80's when upstate NY'ers still believed that fiction that their hard earned tax dollars were supporting "welfare queens in NY City". Annually they called for NY to become its own state. It wasn't until manufacturing and agriculture left and facts began to emerge that in actuality, NY City's been supporting the impoverished rural counties of upstate forever. You don't hear this "cut em loose" rhetoric much anymore. In actuality, NY City should cut upstate off if just to teach a lesson in humility. But make no mistake about it, I could've told you about upstate without doing any exhaustive internet search. All those cold winters spent indoors, with nothing to do but watch bad T.V. (when the power wasn't out) and hate on people you never come in contact with have produced some truly twisted people up there. .

Recently there've been an influx of "survivalists" who are up there sharpening their knives and reloading their amma in anticipation of the "race war" or the "zombiepocalypse".....


Sing it everybody....

"I love New York...."

Worf

[Hyfi]

But bear in mind that what people say conditions their vote and what actually conditions their vote are two different things.

People are aware of what is presently politically correct and that is what they tend to say in polls, etc., to avoid public disapprobation. However what they actually feel and how they will act or vote when nobody is looking, is another matter. (BTW, I've been an unusually candid person all my life and it has got me into a lot of trouble.)

That reminds me of when Clinton got elected the first time around. Everyone looked at each other said I didn't vote for him did you? And then the second time around he got re-elected, and everyone looked at each other and said I didn't vote for him, did you?

But someone voted for him both times and I guess they then lied about actually voting for him because he was elected twice.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence, I don't need to prove my accomplishments to you. I'm glad you feel that your success grants you justification to **** on anyone you don't know. It just makes your argument that you are an honest, civil individual that much more laughable. I just found it funny that you tend to refer to yourself rather than referring to the collective 1% whenever possible. I did not imply a deeper meaning, though that didn't stop you from constructing one and defending your lifelong achievements. Bravo. Markw's method of replacing civil debate with puerile belittling has influenced you well to be able to even associate with lowly morons like the rest of us non-achievers. You look just like old man Lebowski right about now, if you get the reference.

You really needs some help, you have some real issues. No, you don't need to prove your accomplishments to me, and you don't have any damn right to negatively knock mine. What you said was stupid as hell, out of context, and nothing more than an opportunity(far outside of the discussion) to take what personal issues you have with me out into the open. Get a life bruh....you have passive/aggressive on steroids going here. This discussion had turned to voting patterns, and you twisted it into a personal attack, and some jealous tirade about my success. How pitiful is that? You sound jealous, and that is pretty sad. I cannot speak for the collective 1%, because we don't all live the same lifestyle. I can only speak for me and how I live. I started off dirt poor in college, as my parents refused to invest in an education that included a degree in Film. When I came to Los Angeles, I had enough money for one year at USC via a scholarship, and $100 dollars in cash in my pocket. I worked my freakin a$$ off, so I am not going to let some online MF criticize or pass judgement on my success.

You really need to stand back and be less personal, and stay on topic if that is not too difficult for you.

I have never used my success to do anything on this forum or any other. Nobody knows my success, I have never discussed it on this forum, or any other. My experience is far more important, and that is what I emphasize when participating here. Maybe you should do the same if you really have something to offer.

Let's begin with your YOUR source. NBC. Certainly the least biased media outlet from which one can gather data, right? Ha. I'd like to put your mention of voter percentage to use since you failed to do so by following it (though not comparing it) with a completely different ****ing statistic! And you have the nerve to relentlessly insult MY intelligence? Anyway, here are some stats from census.gov.

Not really interested in your opinion of a network. NBC did not do the poll, they just reported what the survey revealed.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

There was a 5 million registered voter increase between 2004 and 2008. Of those, roughly 2 million were black. This correlates to a 4.7% increase in black votes, as shown in the data. Of blacks who voted, those aged 18-24 saw an increase of 8.3% which was unprecedented for this specific demographic in election history. As far as proving that this increase is directly resultant of this demographic's preference for a candidate's race is murky. Why were registered black voters so heavily courted? Simply because they showed a relatively low rate of involvement?

Here's an interesting study that attempts to correlate the efficacy of campaign mobilization (calls, knocking on doors, public speeches, etc) on increased black voter turnout.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/tsp228/w...%20McGowen.pdf

Though the many, many variables (group identity, interest) and themes compared in this study can be inconclusive in corroborating the scientist's hypothesis of the effect of campaign mobilization on black voter turnout, it can be argued that the presence of a black candidate can lead to an increase in black voter turnout.



It can be proven that ideologies and interests central to the black voting populous give rise to a cohesiveness among black voters. That their achieved greater presence in American politics since the days of civil rights pioneering correlates to a heightened interest in voting among blacks to further common interests.

Regarding your NBC poll, few people truly admit to racial bias. It's a fact. Most surveying agencies don't rely on the credibility of such reported data.

However, I do find it interesting that lately Obama has been personally appearing at Hispanic and female oriented events, but has sent Joe Biden to events largely attended by blacks, in some cases represented by the NAACP. Some might say he thinks he has the black vote in the bag, but I will continue to question the validity of that, while relying on quantifiable evidence that may merely point in that direction.

So this is what you present to me as evidence that race ONLY drives a person to vote. This is somebody's analysis, not evidence of anything. This can be folded backwards as well. If this is what you use, then logic dictates that whites since this country started where doing exactly the same thing. For 233 years, whites have voted for white males as President, and since they are the majority, we have had white male Presidents. It wasn't the message that drove that vote, it was who was the most eloquent, good looking and most Presidential, which excluded all non whites from admission to the game. . It wasn't that some Black, Asian, or Latino male or female out there was not good looking or eloquent, it's just they weren't.....well white.

Do you think that is a fair assessment? I would say so which makes you a hypocrite for dogging blacks for something whites have been doing for two centuries plus. Upon first blush this would make your comments racist, but I am not going to put that on you. I think your comments are stupid and ignorant, not to mention short sighted and narrow minded.

Lastly, if race is the driving force behind voting patterns, why didn't Jessie Jackson(twice no less) get a huge amount of support from blacks when he ran for President? Well, I'll tell you why since I know you will have trouble figuring it out. He was not ELECTABLE! Why didn't black's galvanize behind Sharpton in 2004? NOT ELECTABLE and partially because he was not trusted as well. They did get behind Shirley Chisholm in 72, and they(and we know who I mean) tried to kill her three times. They didn't support Lenora Fulani as an independent candidate in 92. So this kind of blows a gigantic hole in your stupid comment. History shows that if a Black candidate does not have a message(or a plan) that appeals to the Blacks, they will not support them. Black folks are not sheeple, and not monolithic in thought or opinions. That is a indisputable fact. To add, that goes for Hispanics as well.

By the way hypocrite, Romney has been courting both females and Hispanics as well. If you have anymore stupid points to make, please keep them to yourself - I am bored.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But bear in mind that what people say conditions their vote and what actually conditions their vote are two different things.

I agree. this however applies to all races that participate in the voting process.

People are aware of what is presently politically correct and that is what they tend to say in polls, etc., to avoid public disapprobation. However what they actually feel and how they will act or vote when nobody is looking, is another matter. (BTW, I've been an unusually candid person all my life and it has got me into a lot of trouble.)

Once again I agree with you if we are talking about person Identified polls and opinions. Polls like these are conducted anonymously which is why 6% of people surveyed would have a racial preference both ways. This is why the over whelming amount of folks who did not care about race is so important.