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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[texlle]

Terrence, you are the epitome of a flailing idiot. Though that may be a discredit to idiots since many of them know how to read. Some can even think critically before they act. I suppose using proper grammar and spelling would be a bit much to ask of you. This has regressed exactly as I expected.