Election spurs hundreds of race threats and crimes


From your link:

Outside of Missouri and maybe Delaware, staying competitive among black voters wouldn't have tipped any states for Clinton from the losing to winning column. But had she improved her performance to just 20 percent, she would have significantly reduced, if not eliminated entirely, her national popular-vote deficit (even without the disputed Florida and Michigan returns). And because the formula for assigning delegates favors the candidate who wins delegate-rich urban areas, Clinton could have limited the lopsided delegate-per-vote ratio Obama enjoyed in states ranging from Alabama to Maryland to Wisconsin.

Not enough to make or break the election which goes against what you have proposed.

So again ...

Here's what I think:

I think there were a lot of people who didn't want to see Hillary get the Democratic nomination. They didn't like her supposed inevitability and she represented more of the same ... Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and the voters rejected her. They were left with Obama or Richardson because Edwards was already a national loser and Biden a lifelong Senator neither of which represented change. I understand Obama picked Biden as VP but Biden is clearly competent and that what's you want in a VP not another perceived "outsider." They chose Obama. The funny thing is that if they picked Richardson I bet we'd be hearing about Latins voting for him because he's Latin and that illegals were voting for him, etc.
 
There is 2 reasons the republicans lost this election, and those reasons are McCain/Palin.

[YOUTUBE]GEtZlR3zp4c[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]XbQwAFobQxQ[/YOUTUBE]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c]YouTube - McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQwAFobQxQ]YouTube - Sarah Palin CBS Interview (Katie Couric)[/ame]
 
Last edited:
From your link:



Not enough to make or break the election which goes against what you have proposed.

So again ...

You're correct. It didn't cost her the nomination, but it did cost her the popular vote. It is the delegates that matter. Still, I think a 90-10 advantage is staggering and sad.
 
You're correct. It didn't cost her the nomination, but it did cost her the popular vote. It is the delegates that matter. Still, I think a 90-10 advantage is staggering and sad.

So can we now agree that Barack the candidate, not Barack the black guy, won the nomination and presidency?
 
So can we now agree that Barack the candidate, not Barack the black guy, won the nomination and presidency?

I don't think we should say "black guy". His mother, were she alive, would have something to say about that. :eusa_angel: But otherwise, yes. That ratio is staggering, though.
 
John Kerry had 88% of the black vote. The majority of blacks will support democrats regardless of color. They supported Clinton,Gore,Kerry, and now Obama.
 
John Kerry had 88% of the black vote. The majority of blacks will support democrats regardless of color. They supported Clinton,Gore,Kerry, and now Obama.

We were talking about the primaries, you idiot.
 
Well you were proven wrong, idiot!!

we were having a discussion. if you would like to join a discussion, at least know what the fuck we're talking about. I wasn't proven wrong about 90 percent of a demographic voting for someone based on skin color.
 
Last edited:
This is untrue.

I already made the point that Sharpton and Jackson didn't get anywhere near the level of support that Obama did from the African American community.

Right.... I wonder why? Could it be that they had an African American man running on the Democratic ticket??? :eusa_whistle:
 
Right.... I wonder why? Could it be that they had an African American man running on the Democratic ticket??? :eusa_whistle:

Did you run off and smoke some crack or something?

The Democratic party has enjoyed the black vote nationally for some time now. This isn't anything new. We were talking about the primaries. Your dumbass said that the black candidate will automatically get the black vote. This is false because Sharpton and Jackson didn't "automatically" get the black vote. They got nowhere near the support from the black community that Obama did.

Now go run along to another thread and practice your lame one-liners.
 
Who ever thought that the cottage industry that exists under the bumper sticker "United States is Racist" would go away just because the majority had no compunction in voting for a black man as our president.

Here' the ole left wing AP stirring up the pot with a handful of anectodals, including "a large subset of white people in this country...."

How about Charles Ogletree, Harvard professor, candidate for attorney general, saying the election doesn't count in race relations because Obama is only half black?

Victim, victim, victim... It never ends.

Oddly enough -I haven't heard of any of this crap going on at all -except the fact death threats against Obama have risen since getting elected. Which is actually quite routine since the winner in every Presidential election starts getting bombarded with death threats. That pretty much continue nonstop while in office. Just ask the Secret Service about all the death threats Bush has gotten.

I live in a pretty conservative state and in a pretty conservative town -and life is going on as usual as it always does following an election no matter who won. No cross burnings, no death threats, no demonstrations in the street about a black man winning the White House and certainly no school kids chanting racist crap. So where are all these huge increases in "racist activity" taking place since it isn't in my state and no such thing is being reported in newspapers or by news stations in this state? New York and California or what?

I think the leftwing media expected to see a "racist" America that ALMOST elected a black man but at the last minute couldn't quite do it. So they were all prepared with all sorts of op-ed pieces condemning Americans for their bigotry for failing to elect the man (yeah -if only Obama had been white, all those conservatives who strongly disagree with the political positions of THE most liberal candidate to ever run in at least 100 years -would have just gone ahead and voted for him, right? Even though they didn't vote for Gore and didn't vote for Kerry? Media still doesn't get it that Obama's race was not an issue for conservatives in the first place who already rejected this guy for his politics) -and now that the guy didn't just win, but won DECISIVELY with a far more impressive showing than Clinton was ever able to muster and more decisively than any Democrat has won since LBJ -they must STILL find a way to condemn Americans as "racists" anyway. After all, why waste all those "brilliant" op-ed pieces they had all prepared anyway, right?

Where was this Charles Ogletree all his life? He says it "didn't count" as having elected a black person because Obama is only half black - but never happened to notice that both society and the law for centuries considered someone who was even 1/8th black -to be a black person? If it counted then, it sure as hell counts now.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top