Yes, Mallard. That's the lesson of the 2012 election. Keep thinking that until at least 2016. Please.
And if possible, say it a lot. In public.
7 comments:
Steve-O
said...
I don't remember people saying that people voted for Romney because they were racists. If I didn't know better I'd say Brucie was setting up a strawman here. Nawwww, he wouldn't do that!
There *is* a race-based difference between the parties. The GOP attacked minorities, trying to keep them from voting and using them as bogeyment to scare their base. Minorities aren't stupid, and reacted by opposing the GOP.
Now look at the other side. The Democrats didn't say whites were lazy, dangerous "takers" or attack my race in any other way. There's no race-based reason for whites to prefer one party or the other because neither party especially helps or hurts whites.
Romney did attract *all* of the anti-black racist vote, which accounts for *some* of the margin he got among whites, but there just isn't any parallelism to the black vote for Obama; minorities voting Obama is simple self-interest. ---- However, in Washington State we *did* run a little experiment in race-based voting. During the primary, we also had a state Supreme Court race. Candidate A was the incumbent, experienced, raised lots of money, campaigned hard and got all the newspaper endorsements. Candidate B had none of that: not much experience, no money for ads, didn't campaign. The result was 60/40 in favor of Candidate A, which is odd because candidate B didn't even campaign, so why did anyone at all vote for him? Did I mention Candidate A's name was Gonzales?
OK Brucie, here's how it works: Disagreeing with Obama and voting against him doesn't make you racist. Calling him the N word does. Got it? Now shut the hell up.
7 comments:
I don't remember people saying that people voted for Romney because they were racists. If I didn't know better I'd say Brucie was setting up a strawman here. Nawwww, he wouldn't do that!
So Tinsh is admitting that, in his dim little booze- and butthurt-addled brain, this is all about race?
There *is* a race-based difference between the parties. The GOP attacked minorities, trying to keep them from voting and using them as bogeyment to scare their base. Minorities aren't stupid, and reacted by opposing the GOP.
Now look at the other side. The Democrats didn't say whites were lazy, dangerous "takers" or attack my race in any other way. There's no race-based reason for whites to prefer one party or the other because neither party especially helps or hurts whites.
Romney did attract *all* of the anti-black racist vote, which accounts for *some* of the margin he got among whites, but there just isn't any parallelism to the black vote for Obama; minorities voting Obama is simple self-interest.
----
However, in Washington State we *did* run a little experiment in race-based voting. During the primary, we also had a state Supreme Court race. Candidate A was the incumbent, experienced, raised lots of money, campaigned hard and got all the newspaper endorsements. Candidate B had none of that: not much experience, no money for ads, didn't campaign. The result was 60/40 in favor of Candidate A, which is odd because candidate B didn't even campaign, so why did anyone at all vote for him?
Did I mention Candidate A's name was Gonzales?
Translation: "WE'RE not the racists! You N****RS are the racists!!"
OMG --- the War On Christmas is ON ... and Bing Crosby Is Leading The Charge!!!!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rewinn/8236047906/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJi-8ulYevU
Republicans are enlightened, and they always vote for the bestest candidate.
Republican congressmen choose the bestest, whitest candidates for all chairmanships. Because they want a government that looks like 1954.
OK Brucie, here's how it works: Disagreeing with Obama and voting against him doesn't make you racist. Calling him the N word does. Got it? Now shut the hell up.
Post a Comment