Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Did Obarma win, more because of his colour, rather than his policies?
66 Answers
http:// www.dai lymail. ...meri can-pol itics.h tml
/// Angered by the Republican candidate’s hardline stance on immigration, Hispanics supported Mr Obama by an overwhelming 70 per cent to 30 per cent margin.
/// There was no surprise that black voters backed the president by a massive majority, ///
The Divided Nation chart, makes for interesting reading, 94% blacks voted for Obama, but a respectable 40% of whites also did, would one ever see 40% blacks vote for a white candidate no matter how supportive his policies were?
/// Angered by the Republican candidate’s hardline stance on immigration, Hispanics supported Mr Obama by an overwhelming 70 per cent to 30 per cent margin.
/// There was no surprise that black voters backed the president by a massive majority, ///
The Divided Nation chart, makes for interesting reading, 94% blacks voted for Obama, but a respectable 40% of whites also did, would one ever see 40% blacks vote for a white candidate no matter how supportive his policies were?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.<<The mention of colour has been brought into the past US election campaign on numerous occasions by more intelligent people than either you or I.
But it would seem that the mere mention of colour is viewed by some as a definite no, no,>>
That is a rather foolsh (or dishonest) notion aog
Race has been and still is a big issue in US politics. You don't need to be Alistair Cooke to know that.
Questions of candidate ethnicity selection to optimise voter appeal are regular topics in the US and the same has has occured on this thread.
What is likely to be more of a 'no, no' is couching it in derogatory terms;
<Did Obarma win, more because of his colour, rather than his policies?>
is just as much a crass over simplification as asking;
'did Kennedy win in New York, more because he was a Catholic, rather than his policies?'
'did George Bush win in Oregon, more because he was white, rather than his policies?'
Those circumstances help connect with the electorate but can't outweigh the wrong policies
But it would seem that the mere mention of colour is viewed by some as a definite no, no,>>
That is a rather foolsh (or dishonest) notion aog
Race has been and still is a big issue in US politics. You don't need to be Alistair Cooke to know that.
Questions of candidate ethnicity selection to optimise voter appeal are regular topics in the US and the same has has occured on this thread.
What is likely to be more of a 'no, no' is couching it in derogatory terms;
<Did Obarma win, more because of his colour, rather than his policies?>
is just as much a crass over simplification as asking;
'did Kennedy win in New York, more because he was a Catholic, rather than his policies?'
'did George Bush win in Oregon, more because he was white, rather than his policies?'
Those circumstances help connect with the electorate but can't outweigh the wrong policies
On race, aog, do you think there's anybody on here who is afraid to mention immigration or race for fear of being thought racist? Are you? (No perhaps not)
But people who mention race when race is irrelevant to the question, or have a fondness for citing stories of black or brown people committing crime or other wrongdoings might justifiably be considered to have some racism in their make up.
But people who mention race when race is irrelevant to the question, or have a fondness for citing stories of black or brown people committing crime or other wrongdoings might justifiably be considered to have some racism in their make up.
aog
I'm not missing the point - you wrote:
<if Romney had won because of the black vote, then I would have been surprised.>
Yes. Many people would have been - because his policies overall disadvantaged black voters.
The point is (as I posted earlier) that a white candidate with Obama's policies would likely pick up more of the black-hispanic vote than a black candidate with Romney's policies.
I'm not missing the point - you wrote:
<if Romney had won because of the black vote, then I would have been surprised.>
Yes. Many people would have been - because his policies overall disadvantaged black voters.
The point is (as I posted earlier) that a white candidate with Obama's policies would likely pick up more of the black-hispanic vote than a black candidate with Romney's policies.
why are blacks more likely to vote for a black person given a choice between black and white
But you don't know that. All you know is that they voted for one particular black person. The choice was between Romney and Obama, not between a black and a white (have a look at a ballot form, you'll see I'm right). The rest is just your interpretation.
http:// www.sla te.com/ ....rec tangle3 -large. jpg
But you don't know that. All you know is that they voted for one particular black person. The choice was between Romney and Obama, not between a black and a white (have a look at a ballot form, you'll see I'm right). The rest is just your interpretation.
http://
AOG, I know this is diverging from the original question but this young woman recently died in the service of her, and your, country. Would you attach the epithet, 'savage' to her too?
http:// www.bel fasttel ...y-me dic-162 35224.h tml
http://
Anotheoldgit, you will see from this link http:// www.fac tcheck. ...the- democra tic-par ty/ a large majority of black folk in America have, since the 30s, voted for the Democratic candidate. Add the fact that the Democratic candidate was also black, is it any wonder so many voted for him?
"why are blacks more likely to vote for a black person given a choice between black and white, yet whites are not so bothered about the persons colour?"
I don't really see how you can come to this conclusion. The examples of presidential candidates we have (Obama, Clinton, JFK) who won large amounts of the black vote were always opposed by people whose policies were significantly less popular among black Americans.
We don't have an example of two presidential candidates of differing races endorsing exactly the same policies - because that would be a rather pointless election. So I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that black Americans are "more likely to vote for a black person given a choice between black and white, yet whites are not so bothered about the persons colour".
I don't really see how you can come to this conclusion. The examples of presidential candidates we have (Obama, Clinton, JFK) who won large amounts of the black vote were always opposed by people whose policies were significantly less popular among black Americans.
We don't have an example of two presidential candidates of differing races endorsing exactly the same policies - because that would be a rather pointless election. So I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that black Americans are "more likely to vote for a black person given a choice between black and white, yet whites are not so bothered about the persons colour".
sandyRoe
/// AOG, I know this is diverging from the original question but this young woman recently died in the service of her, and your, country. Would you attach the epithet, 'savage' to her too? ///
I am often criticised (no insulted) for simply stating my own views, but I have never used the word savage to insult any person of a particular colour, unless of course they happen to have committed a 'SAVAGE' crime, and for that I make no excuses.
But in your failed attempt to get your own particular point over, you have unashamedly not only lied, but more importantly taken the very sad death of one of our service personnel to get over what is after all your own sick mind's point.
I will not report you for your false implication against me, or your need to use this young ladies untimely death, (which is totally irrelevant to the subject matter in hand), but instead I will leave it displayed for all to see.
You sir, disgust me.
/// AOG, I know this is diverging from the original question but this young woman recently died in the service of her, and your, country. Would you attach the epithet, 'savage' to her too? ///
I am often criticised (no insulted) for simply stating my own views, but I have never used the word savage to insult any person of a particular colour, unless of course they happen to have committed a 'SAVAGE' crime, and for that I make no excuses.
But in your failed attempt to get your own particular point over, you have unashamedly not only lied, but more importantly taken the very sad death of one of our service personnel to get over what is after all your own sick mind's point.
I will not report you for your false implication against me, or your need to use this young ladies untimely death, (which is totally irrelevant to the subject matter in hand), but instead I will leave it displayed for all to see.
You sir, disgust me.
Don't forget when Romney revealed his attitudes at the $50,000 a head fund raising dinner where he dismissed half the population as "not his problem".
I know it was a long time ago in politics but I think he lost the election when that was revealed.
What also amuses me is that Romney fought the campaign on his economic credentials. Apparently being filthy rich qualified him as an economic manager?
I certainly gave a good impression among the rich but it didn't cut the mustard for the ordinary person.
The fact is the idea of superior Republican economic management is a myth. Since 1945 the US stock market has consistently performed fifty percent better under Democratic Presidency than Republican.
I know it was a long time ago in politics but I think he lost the election when that was revealed.
What also amuses me is that Romney fought the campaign on his economic credentials. Apparently being filthy rich qualified him as an economic manager?
I certainly gave a good impression among the rich but it didn't cut the mustard for the ordinary person.
The fact is the idea of superior Republican economic management is a myth. Since 1945 the US stock market has consistently performed fifty percent better under Democratic Presidency than Republican.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.