LOL. And the sex scandal had nothing to do with it? If not for that every single black person in the state could have voted against Moore and he still would have won in a landslide. You keep spinning it however you like, but the black vote is about as meaningful as another black mans life to a black thug in the hood. One more thing. Obama won with the white vote.http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/blaci-voters-boosted-doug-jones/index.html
How black voters boosted Doug Jones to a win in Alabama
By Juana Summers, CNN
Updated 3:45 PM ET, Thu December 14, 2017
Black voters played a pivotal role in Jones' upset win over Moore on Tuesday. According to CNN's exit polling, 29% of the Alabama electorate was made up of black voters, and 96% of those voters backed Jones. Black voters turned out for the special election at a higher level than their share of the electorate when Obama was on the ballot in 2008 and 2012. What's more, a nearly unanimous 98% of black women backed Jones over Moore.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/minority-turnout-determined-the-2012-election/
Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election
William H. Frey Friday, May 10, 2013
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8140030
Young Black Turnout a Record in 2008 Election
July 21, 2009
- By MARY MCGUIRT
Oprah for President?
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
Of course it did and black voters wont turn big conservative states blue but in blue and purple states with good black voter turnout you get results like this
Last edited:
In 2008 yes.If Obama had gotten the same Black voter turn out in 2012 that Hillary got in 2016 Romney would have won.
Not surprisingly, this Fox News article agrees with my position. link at bottom.
Oh wait, just checked again....it's from the New Crock Times.
As stated, somewhat lower black turnout was a factor but not as important a factor as the number of whites who had previously voted for Obama shifting over to trump in 2016.
So just go ahead and bring in one of the loons that get you excited- obviously it is Oprah this week- and we will see how it works out in 2020. As I said yesterday, your analysis consistently overlooks the fact that you could run someone like Maxine Waters and and some transgender as VP and the black voter and the transgender vote will go through the roof. That works for you. Except, as I said yesterday, playing identity politics loses all the white working class vote by the pantload. And I am more than happy to watch the loons in your party- yourself included- just continue to be totally confused about. Biden gets it. Bernie gets it, Bubba gets it. Obama got it.
(you may remember Obama chastising Hillary for writing off the white working class in Wisconsin and Michigan as deplorables and racists- yet those alleged racists voted for a black man twice). But you don't get it and that's fine.
The thing that is consistently missing in your robo-post and robo-analysis is that you reduce the dynamics to just Hillary and Obama. However, the dems have the lowest number of dems in public office in this country since the Civil War. The party got trashed at all levels- local, county, state, national, both houses of congress- because you have no message.
And yes we know the dems had a victory in Alabama which bodes well for other races where the opponent is an alleged child molester and even the republican senator did not vote for him. If you get lucky luck then in every race, then that will work fine. Not much of a strategy though.
And now you want to say that the dems won in the Virginia race too. And that is 100% a result of northern Virginia continuing to just be an extension of DC/government suburbs, and as we know DC is either black and/or government employees/consultants. It is not an indication that the party has improved a national message in any way. It just means that the number of people who will vote for anything democrat has increased there. And yes it is true that nevertheless it will help to take the state for its electoral votes. Yes, electoral votes are what matters. You will be the first to argue that if/when your ilk gets some.
The take home message as always is that your ilk is stuck on candidates that will push the party further and further to the left at a time when you need to re-capture the center. You are part of the problem. Look in the mirror and you will see someone who helped the party to lose in 2016 and helps the party to stay stuck on stupid every day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/...nout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html
Oh wait, just checked again....it's from the New Crock Times.
As stated, somewhat lower black turnout was a factor but not as important a factor as the number of whites who had previously voted for Obama shifting over to trump in 2016.
So just go ahead and bring in one of the loons that get you excited- obviously it is Oprah this week- and we will see how it works out in 2020. As I said yesterday, your analysis consistently overlooks the fact that you could run someone like Maxine Waters and and some transgender as VP and the black voter and the transgender vote will go through the roof. That works for you. Except, as I said yesterday, playing identity politics loses all the white working class vote by the pantload. And I am more than happy to watch the loons in your party- yourself included- just continue to be totally confused about. Biden gets it. Bernie gets it, Bubba gets it. Obama got it.
(you may remember Obama chastising Hillary for writing off the white working class in Wisconsin and Michigan as deplorables and racists- yet those alleged racists voted for a black man twice). But you don't get it and that's fine.
The thing that is consistently missing in your robo-post and robo-analysis is that you reduce the dynamics to just Hillary and Obama. However, the dems have the lowest number of dems in public office in this country since the Civil War. The party got trashed at all levels- local, county, state, national, both houses of congress- because you have no message.
And yes we know the dems had a victory in Alabama which bodes well for other races where the opponent is an alleged child molester and even the republican senator did not vote for him. If you get lucky luck then in every race, then that will work fine. Not much of a strategy though.
And now you want to say that the dems won in the Virginia race too. And that is 100% a result of northern Virginia continuing to just be an extension of DC/government suburbs, and as we know DC is either black and/or government employees/consultants. It is not an indication that the party has improved a national message in any way. It just means that the number of people who will vote for anything democrat has increased there. And yes it is true that nevertheless it will help to take the state for its electoral votes. Yes, electoral votes are what matters. You will be the first to argue that if/when your ilk gets some.
The take home message as always is that your ilk is stuck on candidates that will push the party further and further to the left at a time when you need to re-capture the center. You are part of the problem. Look in the mirror and you will see someone who helped the party to lose in 2016 and helps the party to stay stuck on stupid every day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/...nout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html
Last edited:
Yet Hillary got 3 million more votes and only lost The EC by 80,000 with low turn out from Blacks,Hispanics and Bernie Bros
Hillary got millions more votes than trump,Senate Democrats got millions more votes than Senate Republicans.Democrats picked up 6 House seats and 2 Senate seats in a low democrat turnout election.The people voted for the democrat candidate to be president in 6 of the last 7 elections.Message isn't our problem,its turnout and being bunched up in big cities and states and be screwed by The EC and gerrymandering.
Yeh well. That is what you get with "the most qualified candidate in history" as your ilk referred to her: A participation trophy.
And as I said, you lost on steroids at every level of public office in the country - it is not just a Hillary or electoral college dilemma. It is a rejection of the dem party and just not being able to figure out what you stand for. If those 3 million more votes that Hillary got do anything for the losers in those races then fine. We know that the dem party loves transgenders and hates white working class. Keep beating that drum. Maybe Jake Tapper will announce that he is thinking of running next week and that will get you through another week.
The few that did shift are highly disappointed and will likely be shifting back.
I see. So maybe you should take one of Wyoming's senators away from them because California actually had more dems vote for senator.
Nice theory there to add to your electoral college/popular vote theories and rants.
heh. you guys need a drug test. you are getting confuseder and confuseder and turning into mush. best thing that could happen would be for the dem lefties to split off with Bernie and form a progressive party so that at least the people in the dnc dud party and loon lefty party would know what they stand for. sure, you will get clobbered if you split but you are headed that way anyway.
The few that did shift are highly disappointed and will likely be shifting back.
Again, you assume that Trump is going to run in 2020. But then again, you still assume that Hillary won last time so whatever.