If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   "My party is full of racists"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 480
    More: Obvious, sununu, Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell, GOP, human beings, Blast!, First Lady Michelle Obama, Tom Donilon  
•       •       •

9493 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Oct 2012 at 5:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



480 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-27 11:28:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that AfAm's who don't ordinarily vote, voted for the first time or for the first time in a while solely because of Obama and his race. A lot registered to vote because hip hop stars told them to etc. There was a movement because AfAm's were proud to have made such progress, and that's entirely understandable. I just don't understand the adamant denial by the libs that this took place.

Probably because you're an idiotic troll who trotted out your lame anecdotal evidence in support of your inane theory.

I've noticed that you resort to name calling a lot.

Only against obvious trolls.

And again...


oi52.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-27 11:28:57 PM  

stoli n coke: DeltaPunch: Lenny_da_Hog: Q. How do all the best Republican jokes begin?

A hypocrite, a Republican, and a closeted gay walk into a bar...

They only took up one stool.


Stacked ass-to-cock like a human totem pole?

Oh wait...
 
2012-10-27 11:33:08 PM  

stoli n coke: Silly Jesus: CreamFilling: stoli n coke: The actual statistics have shown the overwhelming majority of African Americans have voted Democratic since Kennedy and LBJ. May have had something to do with the whole "pushing for and signing the civil rights act" deal.

Those are the statistics for people who voted. The actual percentage of eligible African Americans who voted at all was barely above 50%. Certainly not an overwhelming majority of African Americans as a whole voting for any particular party. In 2008, the number of eligible African Americans who voted jumped 20%. Of course you can't ascribe any one motivation to why African American turnout suddenly leaped in 2008, but you'd have to be absolutely farking stupid to believe that race wasn't a factor.

[blog.2modern.com image 340x480]

John Kerry got 88% of the African American vote in 2004.
Link

4 years later, Obama got about 93% of the African American vote.

That's not an earth shaking increase.


Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.
 
2012-10-27 11:34:04 PM  

Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that AfAm's who don't ordinarily vote, voted for the first time or for the first time in a while solely because of Obama and his race. A lot registered to vote because hip hop stars told them to etc. There was a movement because AfAm's were proud to have made such progress, and that's entirely understandable. I just don't understand the adamant denial by the libs that this took place.

Probably because you're an idiotic troll who trotted out your lame anecdotal evidence in support of your inane theory.

I've noticed that you resort to name calling a lot.

Only against obvious trolls.

And again...

[oi52.tinypic.com image 477x346]


s3.favim.com
 
2012-10-27 11:34:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.


You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.
 
2012-10-27 11:34:29 PM  

Vectron: I will try to explain my point again about national censorship of black crime. Local papers do report the stories. The brutality of most of these stories seem like they would warrant national coverage. Here is the most famous one that did not get national attention until enough people complained about it.


No, the honorable thing to do here is drop the point and admit you're full of it.

In fact, I insist on it.
 
2012-10-27 11:37:49 PM  
That's nothing - my hovercraft is full of eels!
 
2012-10-27 11:38:25 PM  

Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.


Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.
 
2012-10-27 11:38:36 PM  
Thanks for locking my computer up Huffington Post .....ASSHOLES !!!!!
 
2012-10-27 11:43:05 PM  

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.


So it was barely up and black Americans still voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat like they have done since the sixties.

Shocking that you guys were wrong.
 
2012-10-27 11:44:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.


Yea but not as significant as the 7 percent overall increase in voter turnout from 2004, so yea.
 
2012-10-27 11:46:29 PM  

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.


Whoops, sorry. I did misstate it. I calculated from the trough in 1996, not 2004. From 2004 to 2008 the actual increase was 8.1%, or 4.9 percentage points.
 
2012-10-27 11:48:42 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

Yea but not as significant as the 7 percent overall increase in voter turnout from 2004, so yea.


So, the surge in African American voters in 2008 was demographically in line with all registrations that year and not the 20% bullshiat that was being bandied about?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.
 
2012-10-27 11:54:39 PM  

Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

So it was barely up and black Americans still voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat like they have done since the sixties.

Shocking that you guys were wrong.


I never argued any change in voting for the Democrat...I simply argued that a certain number of extra AfAm's voted (5%) and I think that it was logically due to race.
 
2012-10-27 11:55:02 PM  

stoli n coke: YoungSwedishBlonde: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

Yea but not as significant as the 7 percent overall increase in voter turnout from 2004, so yea.

So, the surge in African American voters in 2008 was demographically in line with all registrations that year and not the 20% bullshiat that was being bandied about?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.


But but black janitor!
 
2012-10-27 11:55:26 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

Yea but not as significant as the 7 percent overall increase in voter turnout from 2004, so yea.


It was the largest AfAm increase in 20 years, so yea.
 
2012-10-27 11:56:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

So it was barely up and black Americans still voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat like they have done since the sixties.

Shocking that you guys were wrong.

I never argued any change in voting for the Democrat...I simply argued that a certain number of extra AfAm's voted (5%) and I think that it was logically due to race.


Or you know the increased participation from 2004 across the board. You simply argued badly.
 
2012-10-27 11:57:08 PM  

stoli n coke: YoungSwedishBlonde: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

Yea but not as significant as the 7 percent overall increase in voter turnout from 2004, so yea.

So, the surge in African American voters in 2008 was demographically in line with all registrations that year and not the 20% bullshiat that was being bandied about?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.


No. It was the largest AfAm increase in 20 years. Other demographics actually decreased.

You are finally on the right track though and no longer entirely missing the point...so congrats on that.
 
2012-10-27 11:58:35 PM  

Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

So it was barely up and black Americans still voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat like they have done since the sixties.

Shocking that you guys were wrong.

I never argued any change in voting for the Democrat...I simply argued that a certain number of extra AfAm's voted (5%) and I think that it was logically due to race.

Or you know the increased participation from 2004 across the board. You simply argued badly.


WTF?
 
2012-10-27 11:58:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: No. It was the largest AfAm increase in 20 years. Other demographics actually decreased.


How exactly does this make sense with 7% increase in voting from 2004?

Silly Jesus: It was the largest AfAm increase in 20 years, so yea.


So what?
 
2012-10-27 11:59:11 PM  
www.goodlightscraps.com
 
2012-10-27 11:59:11 PM  

stoli n coke: YoungSwedishBlonde: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

Yea but not as significant as the 7 percent overall increase in voter turnout from 2004, so yea.

So, the surge in African American voters in 2008 was demographically in line with all registrations that year and not the 20% bullshiat that was being bandied about?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.


Voter turnout actually decreased 0.2 percentage points from 2004 to 2008. There were just more eligible voters. The surge in African American voters was a huge part of that. The actual number of African American voters increased by over 2 million.
 
2012-10-28 12:01:52 AM  

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.


Aside from the fact that a 5% increase isn't that significant, and that ALL demographics were up, the fact remains that the number of people who vote "for" Obama because he's black have never, and will never, approach the number of people who vote "against" Obama because he's black.

And yet, curiously, you're oh so concerned about the former form of "racism" rather than the latter.
 
2012-10-28 12:03:34 AM  
 
2012-10-28 12:04:14 AM  

CreamFilling: Voter turnout actually decreased 0.2 percentage points from 2004 to 2008.


Voter turnout in 2004: 56.2%
Voter turnout in 2008: 63.0%

lolwut
 
2012-10-28 12:05:54 AM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: CreamFilling: Voter turnout actually decreased 0.2 percentage points from 2004 to 2008.

Voter turnout in 2004: 56.2%
Voter turnout in 2008: 63.0%

lolwut


Math has a liberal bias.
 
2012-10-28 12:06:08 AM  

Ablejack: It would not bother me if anyone who voted for Obama listed "because he is black" among their reasons.


Would it bother you if anyone listed "because he is white" as a reason to vote for Romney?
 
2012-10-28 12:06:59 AM  

CreamFilling: Actual facts and statistics


That has to be the only source that claims voter turnout was higher in 2004.
 
2012-10-28 12:07:12 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Ablejack: It would not bother me if anyone who voted for Obama listed "because he is black" among their reasons.

Would it bother you if anyone listed "because he is white" as a reason to vote for Romney?


I believe that is phrased "Straight Ticket Republican" on the ballot.
 
2012-10-28 12:09:02 AM  

stoli n coke: Silly Jesus: CreamFilling: stoli n coke: The actual statistics have shown the overwhelming majority of African Americans have voted Democratic since Kennedy and LBJ. May have had something to do with the whole "pushing for and signing the civil rights act" deal.

Those are the statistics for people who voted. The actual percentage of eligible African Americans who voted at all was barely above 50%. Certainly not an overwhelming majority of African Americans as a whole voting for any particular party. In 2008, the number of eligible African Americans who voted jumped 20%. Of course you can't ascribe any one motivation to why African American turnout suddenly leaped in 2008, but you'd have to be absolutely farking stupid to believe that race wasn't a factor.

[blog.2modern.com image 340x480]

John Kerry got 88% of the African American vote in 2004.
Link

4 years later, Obama got about 93% of the African American vote.

That's not an earth shaking increase.


Actually it was 95 percent in 2013 I believe. And statistically, that's a huge increase.
 
2012-10-28 12:11:25 AM  

Halli: CreamFilling: Actual facts and statistics

That has to be the only source that claims voter turnout was higher in 2004.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2004G.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

All of these also show it pretty much flat, no statistical significance. Who has it as a 7% overall increase?
 
2012-10-28 12:12:03 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: stoli n coke: Silly Jesus: CreamFilling: stoli n coke: The actual statistics have shown the overwhelming majority of African Americans have voted Democratic since Kennedy and LBJ. May have had something to do with the whole "pushing for and signing the civil rights act" deal.

Those are the statistics for people who voted. The actual percentage of eligible African Americans who voted at all was barely above 50%. Certainly not an overwhelming majority of African Americans as a whole voting for any particular party. In 2008, the number of eligible African Americans who voted jumped 20%. Of course you can't ascribe any one motivation to why African American turnout suddenly leaped in 2008, but you'd have to be absolutely farking stupid to believe that race wasn't a factor.

[blog.2modern.com image 340x480]

John Kerry got 88% of the African American vote in 2004.
Link

4 years later, Obama got about 93% of the African American vote.

That's not an earth shaking increase.

Actually it was 95 percent in 2013 I believe. And statistically, that's a huge increase.


5% higher than Al Gore, in fact.
 
2012-10-28 12:13:58 AM  

CreamFilling: Halli: CreamFilling: Actual facts and statistics

That has to be the only source that claims voter turnout was higher in 2004.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2004G.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

All of these also show it pretty much flat, no statistical significance. Who has it as a 7% overall increase?


So that was wrong but then again so was your 20% claim.
 
2012-10-28 12:14:58 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Actually it was 95 percent in 2013 I believe. And statistically, that's a huge increase.


What other news is there from the future?
 
2012-10-28 12:16:17 AM  

CreamFilling: Halli: CreamFilling: Actual facts and statistics

That has to be the only source that claims voter turnout was higher in 2004.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2004G.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

All of these also show it pretty much flat, no statistical significance. Who has it as a 7% overall increase?


The amount of registered voters went up as there were more than 10 million additional people above voting age in the population from 2004 to 2008.
 
2012-10-28 12:18:44 AM  

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that AfAm's who don't ordinarily vote, voted for the first time or for the first time in a while solely because of Obama and his race. A lot registered to vote because hip hop stars told them to etc. There was a movement because AfAm's were proud to have made such progress, and that's entirely understandable. I just don't understand the adamant denial by the libs that this took place.

Probably because you're an idiotic troll who trotted out your lame anecdotal evidence in support of your inane theory.

I've noticed that you resort to name calling a lot.

Only against obvious trolls.

And again...

[oi52.tinypic.com image 477x346]

[s3.favim.com image 500x244]


This is the second thread you produced that exact same image. Either you are trolling and have a preset series of images to use as a retort, or have something strange going on for Justin Beiber.
 
2012-10-28 12:20:04 AM  
There was also similar increase in support amongst Asians but hispanics went up from 53% in 2004 to 67% in 2008.

Maybe there is a reason for this.
 
2012-10-28 12:22:24 AM  

stoli n coke: The amount of registered voters went up as there were more than 10 million additional people above voting age in the population from 2004 to 2008.


Right, and turnout was more or less the same, which is a statistic independent of the number of voters.

Halli: So that was wrong but then again so was your 20% claim.


Yes, as I acknowledged, and explained where I made the mistake. Care to do the same?
 
2012-10-28 12:23:39 AM  

Mentat: My hovercraft is full of eels.


I will not buy this record. It is scratched.
 
2012-10-28 12:24:15 AM  

Dan the Schman: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: Jesus Christ...this isn't that difficult. I'm talking about the number of AfAm's who voted at all increasing by 20%. Prior to 2008, there were 20% fewer AfAm votes cast.

You have a citation for that?

Oh wait some other guy just said it earlier and you are just copying his post. I'm sure you will deliver.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken his word for it. Was closer to 5%. Still significant though.

Aside from the fact that a 5% increase isn't that significant, and that ALL demographics were up, the fact remains that the number of people who vote "for" Obama because he's black have never, and will never, approach the number of people who vote "against" Obama because he's black.

And yet, curiously, you're oh so concerned about the former form of "racism" rather than the latter.


Per the roper center, Bush beat Kerry 58-41 among white voters, while McCain beat Obama 55-43 among white voters.

Obama beat McCain 95-4 among blacks, while Kerry beat bush 88-11. That's a much stronger gain amongst blacks, which would indicate that race factored much more into the voting decision of blacks than whites.

Its hard to suggest that Obama was a much stronger candidate than Kerry, and that the modest gains among whites relativr to blacks was due to racism among whites rather than racial preference among blacks, because Obama did so much better than any white dem, even those who won nationally. Clinton only won 84-12 among blacks against bob dole in '96.

Based on these stats, it's very difficult to believe your assertion that there are more whites voting against Obama because he's black than there are blacks voting for him because of his race.
 
2012-10-28 12:24:44 AM  
In the end, this thread shows the mentality of your typical Republican. Instead of looking inward and saying, "What can we do to honestly reach out to black folks," they instead lash out and try to claim WELL DEMOCRATS AND BLACKS ARE RACIST TOO, EVEN MORE THAN WE ARE.

You see it all the time. President Obama loses a debate according to popular opinion - Democratic voters fret and worry and honestly criticize the President's approach. Governor Romney loses a debate according to popular opinion, and OH NO LIBRUL MEDIA IS OUT TO GET US ACTUALLY ROMNEY WON WITH THE SILENT MAJORITY AND THOSE POLL NUMBERS MEAN NOTHING.

This is why the Republicans will continue to marginalize themselves. They dictate to their audience rather than listen to them at all times, no matter what.
 
2012-10-28 12:25:56 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Its hard to suggest that Obama was a much stronger candidate than Kerry,


lol wut?
 
2012-10-28 12:26:42 AM  

MisterTweak: I came by this thread hoping to find a weak argument to pick apart. Instead I'm just finding a massively target-rich environment for improving my ignore list.


Walked in, 284 posts. Ignored two people -- just two -- went down to 191. Turned off ignore to see what would happen, and saw 389. Almost all of that was people arguing with and fact checking people who at best neither know nor care about the facts and at worst do know the facts because they couldn't be so relentlessly contemptuous of them if they didn't.

I guess there's people who'd look at that and declare success. For myself, I won't even enter troll threads anymore. When someone gets a greenlight by pasting the headline from WND or NewsBusters, I just close the tab and explore Reddit some more.
 
2012-10-28 12:29:03 AM  

jesdynf: For myself, I won't even enter troll threads anymore.


You don't, huh?
 
2012-10-28 12:29:23 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Debeo Summa Credo: Actually it was 95 percent in 2013 I believe. And statistically, that's a huge increase.

What other news is there from the future?


Oh no, I've said too much! You earthlings weren't supposed to know about the constitutional crisis that will prompt the first ever election do-over next year. Now I have to post a mind erasing laser gif as soon as I figure out the HTML tags. Stay here.

Hold on, I've got a better one: Umm, yeah I'm anticipating Obama will get 95% of the black vote when he runs for dogcatcher in his local district next year after he vacates the white house next january.

/where the hell did I get 2013 from?
 
2012-10-28 12:32:52 AM  

Halli: Debeo Summa Credo: Its hard to suggest that Obama was a much stronger candidate than Kerry,

lol wut?


Sorry, I skipped a few words. it's hard to suggest that the reason for Obama doing so much better than Kerry among blacks was solely because he was a better candidate, because other Dem candidates who were clearly superior to the GOP candidate (like Clinton in '96) did much worse among blacks than Obama did.
 
2012-10-28 12:34:48 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Halli: Debeo Summa Credo: Its hard to suggest that Obama was a much stronger candidate than Kerry,

lol wut?

Sorry, I skipped a few words. it's hard to suggest that the reason for Obama doing so much better than Kerry among blacks was solely because he was a better candidate, because other Dem candidates who were clearly superior to the GOP candidate (like Clinton in '96) did much worse among blacks than Obama did.


Obama also posted gains similar or greater amongst Asians and Hispanics. I wonder why that is.
 
2012-10-28 12:44:39 AM  

beta_plus: What the party of "not racists" looks like:

[www.lawatchdog.com image 550x350]


oh lordy, that "ooh scary Black Panthers" crap again. Big black men in scary uniforms are loitering suspiciously at every single polling place in the country, every election. [rolls eyes]
 
2012-10-28 12:49:16 AM  

Halli: Debeo Summa Credo: Halli: Debeo Summa Credo: Its hard to suggest that Obama was a much stronger candidate than Kerry,

lol wut?

Sorry, I skipped a few words. it's hard to suggest that the reason for Obama doing so much better than Kerry among blacks was solely because he was a better candidate, because other Dem candidates who were clearly superior to the GOP candidate (like Clinton in '96) did much worse among blacks than Obama did.

Obama also posted gains similar or greater amongst Asians and Hispanics. I wonder why that is.


While you are correct that obama did better among hispanics than kerry, if you compare to how he did againsy the last dem candidate to win he did worse.

Obama beat McCain 95-4 among blacks, 67-31 among Hispanics.

Clinton beat Dole 84-12 among blacks, 73-21 among hispanics. In other words, Obama did MUCH better among blacks than Clinton did, while clinton did significantly better among hispanics.

The only real historic statistical outlier is Obama's performance among blacks.
 
2012-10-28 12:50:50 AM  
I'm loving where this thread is trying to go.

White people aren't voting for Romney because he's WHITE, White people are voting for Obama because he's BLACK.

And other related wharrrgaarbl.
 
Displayed 50 of 480 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report