Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote:I wonder if Bloomberg's endorsement matters at all. I'm trying to think of a swing state where his views would carry some weight.

Teggy wrote:Blacks should vote for Republicans because Lincoln freed the slaves

No words.

Teggy wrote:Blacks should vote for Republicans because Lincoln freed the slaves

No words.

msduncan wrote:No more despicable than stuff coming out of the other side about not voting for rich white guys.

El Guapo wrote:I was amused last week by an article that noted that W. Bush did really well among black voters by holding Kerry to "only" 84% of the African American voters in Ohio.

I mean, that was a really good performance, it's just revealing about just how unpopular the GOP is among African Americans.

Remus West wrote:Bush Jr. ... one of more talented public speakers of the last 40 years

Holman wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I wonder if Bloomberg's endorsement matters at all. I'm trying to think of a swing state where his views would carry some weight.

Bloomberg carries weight only because he is known as a business guy who puts business ahead of ideology. Speaking out for Obama might make a few people understand that Obama is palatable to business interests despite all the OMG SOCIALISZM!

Teggy wrote:Blacks should vote for Republicans because Lincoln freed the slaves

No words.

Pyperkub wrote:Saw this linked on facebook:



Democrats have small heads...

Spoiler:

ok, the point is the made in china vs. made in the USA

El Guapo wrote:I was amused last week by an article that noted that W. Bush did really well among black voters by holding Kerry to "only" 84% of the African American voters in Ohio.

I mean, that was a really good performance, it's just revealing about just how unpopular the GOP is among African Americans.

For a decade, Republican strategists have warned that unless the GOP does a better job winning support from black, Latino, and Asian-American voters, its long-term viability may be at risk.

On Tuesday Mitt Romney, who has not managed to make substantial inroads among minorities during his presidential campaign, will find out if that day has arrived. With the nation’s demographics changing rapidly, the election’s results will render a verdict on whether the GOP can continue to win national elections with negligible support from minority groups, who account for more than a quarter of the electorate.

A loss by Romney, despite what is shaping up to be stronger support from whites than any Republican candidate has received in a generation, would underscore the growing political power of minority voters. It could force the GOP to adjust its positions, especially on immigration, where its hard-line stance has alienated Latinos.

By the same token, though, the high level of racial polarization reflected in preelection polls hints at dangers for Democrats. Predictions that Republicans will suffer from an increasingly diverse population rest on the assumption that many white voters will continue to vote Democratic. But if this year’s surveys showing three of every five whites supporting Romney prove accurate, and are a harbinger of long-term trends, falling support from whites could outpace Democratic gains among minorities.

“Both outcomes are possible,” said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University. “The Democrats have a huge problem among white voters, and it seems to be increasing. And whites remain the majority of voters in the United States.”

Even if Romney ekes out a victory, it may be the last one the GOP can wring from the white coalition that has carried the party to the presidency in seven of the last 11 elections, analysts said. This election is the “last hurrah for whites,” said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank.

...

The racial divide is shaping up to be historic. A Pew poll released Monday found that 57 percent of whites planned to vote for Romney, compared to only 37 percent for Obama. That number would translate into the lowest share for a Democrat in a two-person race since Walter F. Mondale got 35 percent of the vote in 1984. By comparison, in Obama’s 2008 victory, 43 percent of white voters supported him.

Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research, said that white voters without college degrees, who tend to have lower incomes and may be more likely to be suffering from sluggish economic growth, accounted for most of Obama’s falloff in the poll.

“Obama’s running about as well among white college graduates as he did four years ago,” Dimock said. “The bigger difference seems to be among less educated whites. It’s almost two-to-one for Romney among the less educated whites.

...

But while the Republican ticket may attract greater white support this year than John McCain did in 2008, Democrats are hoping that boost will be concentrated in Southern states, where it won’t help. Romney could run up the score among white voters in those states, but since he is likely to win their electoral votes anyway, increasing his total number of white votes there won’t help him win the election.

Dimock said that because the economic recovery has been uneven geographically, and white voters are an extremely heterogenous category, it was plausible to think Obama’s losses among whites will not be evenly distributed.

Polls of swing states released Wednesday by the New York Times and CBS lent some credence to that theory. The polls found Romney with a huge lead over Obama among working-class white voters in Florida, but virtually tied with Obama among that demographic in Ohio.Ohio’s overall racial demographics are little changed from 2008. But in other swing states, the population is changing rapidly. Nevada recorded the steepest minority gains, going from 30 percent of the voting-eligible population in 2008 to 39 percent this election. California, North Carolina, New York, and Florida recorded large minority gains as well.

For now, members of racial and ethnic minority groups make up about a quarter of the national electorate, and polls show Obama far ahead. Obama maintains an overwhelming lead among blacks, according to polls, and a smaller margin among Asian-Americans. Among Hispanics, he led 69 percent to 21 percent, according to a Pew Hispanic Center poll earlier this month.

esloan wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:Saw this linked on facebook:



Democrats have small heads...

Spoiler:

ok, the point is the made in china vs. made in the USA

False. Shown to be false on Snopes and a few other places. The official Romney do not come in tan and are all made in the usa . This is a knock off cap made by someone not affiliated with the campaign.

cheeba wrote:

Teggy wrote:Blacks should vote for Republicans because Lincoln freed the slaves

No words.

The article is more sensationalist than the ad.

The article makes it sound like they're saying, "hey, you're free because of us so you owe us." If you actually click on the ad you see they're saying, "hey, Republicans aren't pure evil. See? Lincoln was a Republican."

Did you not actually look at the ad before linking it?

Teggy wrote: Of course I did. The ad says that blacks should like Republicans because Lincoln was a Republican and because Democrats opposed civil rights 70 years ago - as if the parties that existed at that time had anything to do with the parties with those names now.

Holman wrote:

Teggy wrote: Of course I did. The ad says that blacks should like Republicans because Lincoln was a Republican and because Democrats opposed civil rights 70 years ago - as if the parties that existed at that time had anything to do with the parties with those names now.

They have everything to do with those parties now. Just not by those names.

Canuck wrote:So what's this news about the UAW coming out with some last minute dirt ON Romney in a press conference in Ohio?

Teggy wrote:

Holman wrote:

Teggy wrote: Of course I did. The ad says that blacks should like Republicans because Lincoln was a Republican and because Democrats opposed civil rights 70 years ago - as if the parties that existed at that time had anything to do with the parties with those names now.

They have everything to do with those parties now. Just not by those names.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. What this ad is basically saying is, "hey black people, you're too stupid to know that Lincoln would not be part of today's Republican party."

The economy added 171,000 jobs in October, while the unemployment ticked up to 7.9, from 7.8% in September, the Labor Department said Friday.

cheeba wrote:More jobs created yet higher unemployment. Even the statistics are torn!

The U.S. population is growing by about 2.5 million people each year. Of that, immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually.

cheeba wrote:And yet none of you said anything...

cheeba wrote:More jobs created yet higher unemployment. Even the statistics are torn!

YellowKing wrote:Either way, the economy can't keep up with population growth. Four years later, we are not making any real progress whatsoever.

RunningMn9 wrote: Aren't there enough grievances to have without making them up?

YellowKing wrote:Four years later, we are not making any real progress whatsoever.

RunningMn9 wrote:My level of frustration with my dumb Facebook friends is rising. Here in NJ, Gov Christie (an obviously VERY vocal detractor of Obama) has been extremely public and very frequent in his praise of the President for the help he is giving NJ to deal with this disaster. And these idiots are still posting nonsense about how he's totally ignoring the state.

Aren't there enough grievances to have without making them up?

LordMortis wrote:

cheeba wrote:More jobs created yet higher unemployment. Even the statistics are torn!

That's not necessarily true. Population expands. More people come of age to work than leave the work pool.

http://www.npg.org/facts/uspopfax.htm" target="_blank

The U.S. population is growing by about 2.5 million people each year. Of that, immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually.

It sounds like we would have to have shy of 210,000 jobs added every month to keep up with population growth.

No real progress?

YellowKing wrote:

No real progress?

Depends on if you count progress as going from reverse to neutral. I'd prefer we actually move forward.