Just like I told ya. The Republican RED TIDE is actually a WHITE TIDE. Told ya.

[LJ_Reloaded]

The Republicans are making inroads in minority communities all over the country, even in a few instances in the black community. It is a good thing.

The numbers contradict you. Where are you getting this fantasy from?

 

[grunabona]

The numbers contradict you. Where are you getting this fantasy from?

There are innumerable Republicans who were just elected all over the country who are minorities. But don't look, it might be disquieting for you.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

There are innumerable Republicans who were just elected all over the country who are minorities. But don't look, it might be disquieting for you.

Uh, not innumerable. A handful. Elected mainly by whites.

Look at the exit polls I showed you: their votes came primarily from whites. This is an established fact.


You LOST GROUND in every possible sense of the word with black voters.

 

[grunabona]

Uh, not innumerable. A handful. Elected mainly by whites.

Look at the exit polls I showed you: their votes came primarily from whites. This is an established fact.


You LOST GROUND in every possible sense of the word with black voters.

There are far more than a handful. You're kidding yourself. And I didn't lose anything with black voters, and neither did the Republicans. In case you don't realize it, nine out of ten is nine out of ten, so there's no loss there. And the two new Republican members of Congress who are black are going to prove extremely influential, much to your distress. Welcome to the new reality.

 

[Karen Kraft]

All this only is relevant if you accept the notion that having the country run by a bunch of white guys is a bad thing. History suggests that it worked out fairly well in the past and it might be worth a second try. Indeed, where you have Tory and Labour, one seems okay for a while and then not, you mix them up and see how that works. Diversity, in and of itself is neither a good thing or a bad thing. Like everything else, its value depends on the nature of the people in its ranks. Good ones make for positive diversity; bad ones for negative diversity.

So a discussion based on the idea that one party has greater diversity is worthless unless you accept the notion that diversity adds to the intrinsic value of an institution or political structure. Maybe so, but for me, I think it is more individualized. Were the Republicans a much better party during Reconstruction? No, it wasn't, because the actual individuals participating in that diversity were not good.

It just might turn out that old white European males have more to offer than is commonly presumed here and around the latte circuit.

 

[grunabona]

All this only is relevant if you accept the notion that having the country run by a bunch of white guys is a bad thing. History suggests that it worked out fairly well in the past and it might be worth a second try. Indeed, where you have Tory and Labour, one seems okay for a while and then not, you mix them up and see how that works. Diversity, in and of itself is neither a good thing or a bad thing. Like everything else, its value depends on the nature of the people in its ranks. Good ones make for positive diversity; bad ones for negative diversity.

So a discussion based on the idea that one party has greater diversity is worthless unless you accept the notion that diversity adds to the intrinsic value of an institution or political structure. Maybe so, but for me, I think it is more individualized. Were the Republicans a much better party during Reconstruction? No, it wasn't, because the actual individuals participating in that diversity were not good.

It just might turn out that old white European males have more to offer than is commonly presumed here and around the latte circuit.

Ideally, the race of a candidate shouldn't matter, whether white, black, or something else. But in the real world, things like race or ethnicity do matter, unfortunately.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Ideally, the race of a candidate shouldn't matter, whether white, black, or something else. But in the real world, things like race or ethnicity do matter, unfortunately.

Not really.

They only matter if one chooses to play identification politics.

If one rejects that, in the presence of liberals, they go crazy.

 

[grunabona]

Not really.

They only matter if one chooses to play identification politics.

If one rejects that, in the presence of liberals, they go crazy.

You can't ignore the fact millions of people do play identity politics. Well, you can, but it's not wise to do so.

 

[Sean Renaud]

All this only is relevant if you accept the notion that having the country run by a bunch of white guys is a bad thing. History suggests that it worked out fairly well in the past and it might be worth a second try. Indeed, where you have Tory and Labour, one seems okay for a while and then not, you mix them up and see how that works. Diversity, in and of itself is neither a good thing or a bad thing. Like everything else, its value depends on the nature of the people in its ranks. Good ones make for positive diversity; bad ones for negative diversity.

So a discussion based on the idea that one party has greater diversity is worthless unless you accept the notion that diversity adds to the intrinsic value of an institution or political structure. Maybe so, but for me, I think it is more individualized. Were the Republicans a much better party during Reconstruction? No, it wasn't, because the actual individuals participating in that diversity were not good.

It just might turn out that old white European males have more to offer than is commonly presumed here and around the latte circuit.

It doesn't really matter if it worked out in the past. We're talking politics not mechanics. The fact is Bush won because Americans suffer mild retardation. There was NO good reason to go Right in 2000 other than Bush was the son of a former President. Say whatever you want about Clinton the fact is it was working. 2004 was a combo throwaway candidate AND don't change leaders mid war.

When you look at 2008 there was little if any reason to go as radically left as the country did. Sure the country was fucked up but MOST americans (not knowing any better) are against government spending. So what did they do? Give fillabuster proof majorities to the party of tax and spend. Now two years of it kinda sorta workin and they switch again? Really?

When you look at the hard numbers of minorities (or hell the hard numbers of America) Republicans and Conservative ideas don't hold many majorities. The funny part is that you'd slaughter in elections if you'd just dump the "true" Conservatives. I can say for personal experience that if the Republicans were to just start supporting science (no more Creationism, no more banning Stem Cell) stop being so religious it's frightening (no more Creationism, no more anti-abortion, no more claiming this is a Christian Nation, no more fighting Gay Rights.) You'd NEVER lose elections anywhere. For whatever retarded reason the Right is content to play with an anchor tied to their ankle.

 

[richard_daily]

All this only is relevant if you accept the notion that having the country run by a bunch of white guys is a bad thing. History suggests that it worked out fairly well in the past and it might be worth a second try. Indeed, where you have Tory and Labour, one seems okay for a while and then not, you mix them up and see how that works. Diversity, in and of itself is neither a good thing or a bad thing. Like everything else, its value depends on the nature of the people in its ranks. Good ones make for positive diversity; bad ones for negative diversity.

So a discussion based on the idea that one party has greater diversity is worthless unless you accept the notion that diversity adds to the intrinsic value of an institution or political structure. Maybe so, but for me, I think it is more individualized. Were the Republicans a much better party during Reconstruction? No, it wasn't, because the actual individuals participating in that diversity were not good.

It just might turn out that old white European males have more to offer than is commonly presumed here and around the latte circuit.

It worked out "great" in the past... for white males.

Everyone else, not so much.

 

[unregistered]

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

There are far more than a handful. You're kidding yourself. And I didn't lose anything with black voters, and neither did the Republicans. In case you don't realize it, nine out of ten is nine out of ten, so there's no loss there. And the two new Republican members of Congress who are black are going to prove extremely influential, much to your distress. Welcome to the new reality.

Damn you're an idiot. 9% of blacks voted Republican this time. This is DOWN from 11%. Did you flunk math?

Two black Republicans. Whoopy do. Influential my ass. You remember what the Republicans did to Michael Steele? He's been getting made their bitch over and over again.

The shifting racial demographics are moving against you, dude.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You'd NEVER lose elections anywhere. For whatever retarded reason the Right is content to play with an anchor tied to their ankle.

Republicans have other big problems: their racism, for one. Plus opposition to globalism is quite strong even within the Tea Party.

Cutting taxes? That is a self-solving problem: soon as the infrastructure collapses to a sufficiently low level and food riots break out because more of the poor can't afford to eat, you can kiss ALL the Republican principles goodbye.

Then America will be free to re-join the civilized world.

 

[lorelei25]

Black voters went Republican even LESS now than they ever did before. 9% now versus 11% in 1994.

Hispanic voters saved the Democrats in California and Nevada, and exit polls suggest that Hispanics voted Democratic about 65% this time around.

WHITES voted for Republicans 60%. Whites appear to be the ONLY racial group to vote majority Republican; however, we are missing statistics on the various Asian demographics which by these exit polls amount to 3% at best (not actually, since there's also ones like Native American*, etc.).


http://blog.pos.org/documents/exit_poll_comparison.pdf

* Native Americans, of course, would be the MAJORITY of America's voting populace if it weren't for the invasion of the continents by whites, who now want to seal the borders of the land they conquered by disease and mass murder.

of course....

 

[grunabona]

Damn you're an idiot. 9% of blacks voted Republican this time. This is DOWN from 11%. Did you flunk math?

Two black Republicans. Whoopy do. Influential my ass. You remember what the Republicans did to Michael Steele? He's been getting made their bitch over and over again.

The shifting racial demographics are moving against you, dude.

No, you're the idiot. Blacks were less influential this time than last due to lower turnout, you fool. And the difference between 9% and 11% of a small voting block, even if it were possible to accurately determine the percentage to that degree by exit polling, which it is not, is nothing for the Republicans to get too excited about. The problem with blacks always voting 90% one way is both sides take them for granted. You are a moron for not realizing that.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No, you're the idiot. Blacks were less influential this time than last due to lower turnout, you fool. And the difference between 9% and 11% of a small voting block, even if it were possible to accurately determine the percentage to that degree by exit polling, which it is not, is nothing for the Republicans to get too excited about.

Sigh. You must hate math.

The problem with blacks always voting 90% one way is both sides take them for granted. You are a moron for not realizing that.

You're a retard for not understanding that blacks vote 90% Liberal because there is no future for them in Conservatism. Not even Michael Steele has been able to stop the decline in black support: you guys pretty much solidified that in the way you treated him.

Conservatism has only ever benefitted whites in this country. It is an ideology based on greed, exploitation and lifeboat ethics - three things that, while not unique to whites, is something they're best at.

 

[grunabona]

Sigh. You must hate math.


You're a retard for not understanding that blacks vote 90% Liberal because there is no future for them in Conservatism. Not even Michael Steele has been able to stop the decline in black support: you guys pretty much solidified that in the way you treated him.

Conservatism has only ever benefitted whites in this country. It is an ideology based on greed, exploitation and lifeboat ethics - three things that, while not unique to whites, is something they're best at.

If you think there is a future for blacks in liberal politics and always voting 90% for the Democratic Party, you are sadly mistaken. But I will leave you in your happy delusion.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

If you think there is a future for blacks in liberal politics and always voting 90% for the Democratic Party, you are sadly mistaken. But I will leave you in your happy delusion.

History can speak for itself. Conservatives have done fuck all for anyone but whites. That is all.