I've been reading on this for a while and have come to the following conclusion.
The country is so fed up with the current President that if the Democrats DON'T win, it will be their own fault.
Both of the Democratic contenders are already trying to blame Mr. Nader. Why don't they have enough confidence in their platforms to squash him?
I don't get it.
Full Version: Ralph Nader
The democrats have already spoiled their chances. John Edwards might have actually been able to appeal to the masses, but he is gone now.
QUOTE (siriunsun @ Feb 25 2008, 02:27 PM) 
The democrats have already spoiled their chances. John Edwards might have actually been able to appeal to the masses, but he is gone now.
I agree that Edwards was a much better choice than either of the other two but you can't say that Obama doesn't appeal to the masses. The problem is the masses are ignorant.
Maybe Nader can pull enough Democratic votes in a few close states to swing it to McCain. I doubt it, but stranger things have happened.
link
Maybe he'll do the corporate media's job for them.
QUOTE
Nader lashes out at Democrats, defends candidacy
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader lashed out at the Democratic presidential candidates Monday after they said he could hurt their chances of taking back the White House.
Ralph Nader's decision to again run for president is drawing criticism from Democrats.
The longtime consumer advocate announced Sunday that he will launch his fourth consecutive White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.
In an interview with CNN on Monday, Nader accused Illinois Sen. Barack Obama of name-calling and challenged him to "address the issues."
"Above all, explain why you don't come down hard on the economic crimes against minorities in city ghettos: payday loans, predatory lending, rent-to-own rackets, landlord abuses, lead contamination, asbestos," Nader said.
"There's an unseemly silence by you, Barack -- a community organizer in poor areas in Chicago many years ago -- on this issue," he said.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader lashed out at the Democratic presidential candidates Monday after they said he could hurt their chances of taking back the White House.
Ralph Nader's decision to again run for president is drawing criticism from Democrats.
The longtime consumer advocate announced Sunday that he will launch his fourth consecutive White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.
In an interview with CNN on Monday, Nader accused Illinois Sen. Barack Obama of name-calling and challenged him to "address the issues."
"Above all, explain why you don't come down hard on the economic crimes against minorities in city ghettos: payday loans, predatory lending, rent-to-own rackets, landlord abuses, lead contamination, asbestos," Nader said.
"There's an unseemly silence by you, Barack -- a community organizer in poor areas in Chicago many years ago -- on this issue," he said.
Maybe he'll do the corporate media's job for them.
I think Nader is old news and that most people don't take him seriously as a contender anymore. There's probably a small group of people who vote for him, but I doubt it's enough to seriously affect the outcome of the democratic votes.
For those of you who don't think Nader can make a difference, think back eight years ago to the election of 2000. Had it not been for the votes that Nader took away from Gore in Florida, there never would have been a President Bush. Some think that would have been a good thing, some think that would have been a bad thing, but the bottom line is that Ralph Nader severely altered the course of US history in 2000. Can he do it again in 2008?
Thank you Drevin, that is my point exactly.
It seems to me with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama making so much noise about his entrance, then they must be worried about something.
It seems to me with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama making so much noise about his entrance, then they must be worried about something.
QUOTE (PHISH @ Feb 25 2008, 02:55 PM)
I think Nader is old news and that most people don't take him seriously as a contender anymore. There's probably a small group of people who vote for him, but I doubt it's enough to seriously affect the outcome of the democratic votes.
I don't know about that. He got over 97,000 votes in FLA in 2000 and Bush only won by 553. With the Democrats p!ssing on Michigan and Florida voters this year he could swing it to McCain in both places. That's a lot of electoral votes. I don't care how much Obama beats Clinton by in the southern state primaries there's no way in hell he's going to win places like South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Kansas in the general election. I think Nader could make a difference.
Id, I think you really hit it on the head. Michigan and Florida could be the very turning points in this election, and as you pointed out, the Democrats decided that the votes from these two states wouldn't be counted as 'real' votes during the primary. Heck, I think Clinton and Obama were actually prohibited from campaigning in Florida I believe because Florida had moved its election date up so that its results would actually be meaningful in a primary. The Democratic party didn't approve of this move, so they basically put the whole state in the penalty box. Considering what happened in 2000, this could be one of the biggest political blunders of all time.
I absolutely will admit that Nader made a difference in the 2000 elections, but I think it's too late in the game for him now. Just my opinion - maybe I'm wrong. Guess we'll see come November. 
Nader can either muck it up or help. He will alter the current projections. I feel he will throw a monkey wrench into it by coming in at this late date. A definite liabillity for the Democrats but a possible plus for the Republicans. Agree w/ Drevin, look what happened in Florida.
Drevin hit it on the head......."For those of you who don't think Nader can make a difference, think back eight years ago to the election of 2000. Had it not been for the votes that Nader took away from Gore in Florida, there never would have been a President Bush. Some think that would have been a good thing, some think that would have been a bad thing, but the bottom line is that Ralph Nader severely altered the course of US history in 2000. Can he do it again in 2008?"
Drevin hit it on the head......."For those of you who don't think Nader can make a difference, think back eight years ago to the election of 2000. Had it not been for the votes that Nader took away from Gore in Florida, there never would have been a President Bush. Some think that would have been a good thing, some think that would have been a bad thing, but the bottom line is that Ralph Nader severely altered the course of US history in 2000. Can he do it again in 2008?"
A definite liability for the Democrats? I don't think so. Look at the numbers. In 2000, Nader received 2.4 million votes. In 2004, he received slightly less than half a million votes out of the 122 million cast. You think this year he'll have any more than that? Doubtful.
He's actually kind of pathetic and I think more people see that. After all, how many times are you going to run for president before you realize you're never going to win?
He's actually kind of pathetic and I think more people see that. After all, how many times are you going to run for president before you realize you're never going to win?
QUOTE (PHISH @ Feb 26 2008, 12:43 PM)
A definite liability for the Democrats? I don't think so. Look at the numbers. In 2000, Nader received 2.4 million votes. In 2004, he received slightly less than half a million votes out of the 122 million cast. You think this year he'll have any more than that? Doubtful.
He's actually kind of pathetic and I think more people see that. After all, how many times are you going to run for president before you realize you're never going to win?
He's actually kind of pathetic and I think more people see that. After all, how many times are you going to run for president before you realize you're never going to win?
I agree.
I think people realize the impact he could have on the election if they voted for him. If Nader wasn't in it, those votes would probably go to a democratic nominee, and I think that if Nader was someone's first choice, they may be willing to overlook that (knowing he has no real chance anyway) and vote for a democrat instead simply so that they don't give a republican a better chance of winning. Just my opinion.
COMA says:
I think people realize the impact he could have on the election if they voted for him. If Nader wasn't in it, those votes would probably go to a democratic nominee, and I think that if Nader was someone's first choice, they may be willing to overlook that (knowing he has no real chance anyway) and vote for a democrat instead simply so that they don't give a republican a better chance of winning. Just my opinion.
[/quote]
You said it better than I did, thanks. I just see wasted votes going to Nader. He will take votes away from someone.
Knowing Nader can not win, it seems counter productive.
I think people realize the impact he could have on the election if they voted for him. If Nader wasn't in it, those votes would probably go to a democratic nominee, and I think that if Nader was someone's first choice, they may be willing to overlook that (knowing he has no real chance anyway) and vote for a democrat instead simply so that they don't give a republican a better chance of winning. Just my opinion.
[/quote]
You said it better than I did, thanks. I just see wasted votes going to Nader. He will take votes away from someone.
Knowing Nader can not win, it seems counter productive.
IMO, I do not feel voting for Nader at this late date is prudent. I recognize some would disagree, that is their choice. I too realize we all have have the right to vote for any candidate. That goes without saying. IMO, Nader is not the best choice to utilize when deciding on such an important office. We all have our preferences of candidates, and perspective on whether it will make a difference. Or whether it is a throw away vote to make a statement. Throw away votes for Nader-like candidates, take more votes away from the Democrats. Due to Nader's platform, Republicans are less likely to vote for Nader. In a close election, the Nader factor would make a difference. It comes down to numbers.
I also disagree if one votes for a certain candidate that makes them ignorant. It is just differing perspectives and research that leads us to our choice. We all have our take on what candidate meets our needs.
I also disagree if one votes for a certain candidate that makes them ignorant. It is just differing perspectives and research that leads us to our choice. We all have our take on what candidate meets our needs.
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Feb 26 2008, 01:06 PM)
QUOTE (Drevin @ Feb 25 2008, 03:01 PM)
For those of you who don't think Nader can make a difference, think back eight years ago to the election of 2000. Had it not been for the votes that Nader took away from Gore in Florida, there never would have been a President Bush. Some think that would have been a good thing, some think that would have been a bad thing, but the bottom line is that Ralph Nader severely altered the course of US history in 2000. Can he do it again in 2008?
Nader didn't make a difference. If they had counted ALL of the votes in Florida, Bush wouldn't have won. Nader had nothing to do with that. People should vote for who they want. If that's Nader, more power to them.
To assume that Nader didn't make a difference, you'd have to say that had Nader not been on the ballot, the election result would have been the same. As was pointed out earlier, Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida and Gore lost by less than 600. The general concensus among the analysts at the time was that Nader pulled more voted away from Gore than Bush. So I believe that his presence on the ballot did make a difference in the outcome of the election.
The situation where all of the ballots weren't counted was a completely different issue. This had nothing to do with Nader other than if Nader hadn't been on the ballot, there most likely would not have been a reason to have such a labor-intensive recount.
It will be intereting to see in the years to come how the 2000 election will viewed by historians. In some ways it seems like a really poor movie script where the outcome of the presidential election comes down to the result of the vote count in the state where one of the candidate's brother is the governor (who by the way promised his brother that he would 'deliver' the state to him) and the attorney general for the state assisted with the campaign of that same candidate. No matter what your party is, if that same scenerio played out in Russia or the Czech Republic or a similar country, we (the US) as well as all the other democratic nations would have viewed the results as pure nonsense. However, it wasn't a bad movie; it really happened. Like it or not, Ralph Nader had a big part in it. As Id pointed out, it could happen again in Michigan and Florida this year. Less than 600 votes turned the course of US history.
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Feb 26 2008, 04:59 PM)
QUOTE (Drevin @ Feb 26 2008, 03:53 PM)
To assume that Nader didn't make a difference, you'd have to say that had Nader not been on the ballot, the election result would have been the same. As was pointed out earlier, Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida and Gore lost by less than 600. The general concensus among the analysts at the time was that Nader pulled more voted away from Gore than Bush. So I believe that his presence on the ballot did make a difference in the outcome of the election.
"The general consensus among the analysts" and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts. To assume that Nader cost Gore the election is to assume that everyone that voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. That's assuming a lot since most Americans don't vote. I'm just as likely to believe that if Nader wasn't on the ballet, a majority of Nader voters wouldn't have voted at all. They would have just stayed home.
It might be fun to blame Nader for Gore losing the 2000 election, but Gore has nobody to blame but himself. He ran an awful campaign. He picked Joe Lieberman as a running mate. If he had won his home state of Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered.
Bad campaign, wrong running mate, not winnig Tennessee all might have been contributing factors, but when it came down to it, the situation in Florida will be what's remembered as what made the difference. It's hard to believe that the 97,000 people who voted for Nader went to the polls specifically for that purpose. To assume that they would have stayed home instead is quite an assumption. Also, "to assume that Nader cost Gore the election is to assume that everyone that voted for Nader would have voted for Gore" is far from accurate. Gore only needed 600 more votes to win; he didn't need all 97,000.
Anytime there is a third party candidate in an election without a real chance of winning, there is a chance that this third party person will impact the end result. Just look back at 1992. If I remember correctly, Ross Perot took in about 19% of the vote that year and the concensus was that much of this was from Republican voters. Had Perot not been in the '92 election, we probably would have had a second term with Bush Sr. instead of ever hearing the name of Bill Clinton again. With no Bill Clinton as president, would we actually be having a race in the primaries right now with Hillary. I doubt it; nobody would have ever heard of Hillary.
So even though there is generally no chance for these guys to win, third party candidates can and do have a big impact on American history.
Since Perot helped Bill Clinton steal the election from the Republicans in '92 maybe Hillary can return the favor and run as an independent this time. I would LMAO if she did.
QUOTE (Idiot @ Feb 26 2008, 05:42 PM)
Since Perot helped Bill Clinton steal the election from the Republicans in '92 maybe Hillary can return the favor and run as an independent this time. I would LMAO if she did.
Id, I never thought of that angle, but her running as an independent wouldn't be that far-fetched. You only need to look at what Lieberman did the last election when he lost the Democratic primary but ran as an independent and easily won the general election. Bill and Hillary might feel that the Democratic party has abandoned them so they might feel that it would be OK to mount an independent try. Hillary might think that she can pull in a large part of the Democratic voters along with many independents and possibly even some Republicans. McCain doesn't seem to be wowwing the Republicans if Huckabee is still getting 40% of the vote in the primaries. Who knows. She'll have pretty good idea where she stands with Democrats by next Tuesday. She'd better be 'on' for the debate tonight or it might be time for her to change her affiliation to Independent.
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Feb 26 2008, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE (Idiot @ Feb 26 2008, 05:42 PM)
Since Perot helped Bill Clinton steal the election from the Republicans in '92 maybe Hillary can return the favor and run as an independent this time. I would LMAO if she did.
Perot's participation only hurt Clinton. It didn't help. When running against an incumbent, it doesn't help to give voters more then one choice.
Bent, you might want to read up on your history a bit on this one. Perot's focus on spending and his famous pie charts struck a real chord with the Republicans, especially for those who didn't believe the guy that said 'read my lips....no new taxes".
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Feb 26 2008, 07:51 PM)
QUOTE (Drevin @ Feb 26 2008, 05:54 PM)
Bent, you might want to read up on your history a bit on this one. Perot's focus on spending and his famous pie charts struck a real chord with the Republicans, especially for those who didn't believe the guy that said 'read my lips....no new taxes".
I don't need to read up on the history on this. I was there when it happened. Perot entering the race gave people dissatisfied with Bush not one choice, but two choices. The last thing the Clinton camp wanted was Petrot to enter the race again. Check out The War Room. It's a documentary about Clinton's 1992 campaign. You watch that and tell me that Clinton was happy about Perot running.
I don't think either Clinton or Bush were happy about Perot being in the race. He was gaining steam and was a legitimate contender as a third party for President. Then came the August meltdown prior to the election. That is when Perot freaked everybody out with his conspiracy theory that the CIA was spying on him and was planning on disrupting his daughter's upcoming wedding (or soemthing along those lines). Even with this, he still got close to 20% of the vote. Had he remained on track with his message of fiscal responsibility and didn't freak everyone out, he might have actually won - who knows.
The point is that even if third party candidates don't have a legit shot at winning, they can very much influence the outcome of the election.
Something else to ponder for everyone. What would happen if NY Mayor Bloomberg would throw his hat into the ring this summer as an independent? He's a multi-billionaire, so money for a campaign isn't the issue. With his massive success on Wall Street, he may be just what the country needs as it heads more towards a recession. On social issues, he has been very successful at turning around much of the NYC public school system. So he could make for a very interesting election season.
QUOTE (PHISH @ Feb 25 2008, 02:55 PM)
I think Nader is old news and that most people don't take him seriously as a contender anymore. There's probably a small group of people who vote for him, but I doubt it's enough to seriously affect the outcome of the democratic votes.
I wouldn't bet on that.
QUOTE
Released: March 15, 2008
Zogby Poll: McCain Bests Both Obama, Clinton in 3-Way General Election Tests
Independent candidate Ralph Nader wins 5%, taking more support from Democrats
UTICA, New York – Riding high after locking up his party’s presidential nomination, Republican John McCain of Arizona has moved ahead of both of his potential Democratic Party rivals in a national general election test, the latest Zogby telephone survey shows.
Perhaps profiting from the continuing political battle across the aisle, McCain would defeat Hillary Clinton of New York by six points and Barack Obama of Illinois by 5 points, the survey shows. Clinton and Obama are locked in a tight battle to win the Democratic Party nomination, a fight that has grown nasty at times recently and threatens to continue on all summer long until the party’s national convention in Denver this August.
The telephone survey of 1,001 likely voters nationwide was conducted by live operators calling from Zogby’s call center in Upstate New York on March 13-14, 2008. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points.
Prospective General Election Match-up
3-13/14
McCain
45%
Clinton
39%
Nader
6%
Not sure/Someone else
11%
The introduction of long-time activist Ralph Nader into the mix is having an effect on the race, as he wins enough support to make a difference, the poll shows. Nader entered the race recently, charging that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and their presidential candidates. Using the same argument eight years ago, his presence on the ballot in Florida may well have tipped the presidential election away from Democrat Al Gore and in favor of George W. Bush. His run four years ago yielded less dramatic results, but the political atmosphere has changed since 2004, and may be more favorable for him again, the Zogby survey shows.
In the McCain-Clinton-Nader match-up, McCain leads mainly because of a significant advantage among independents. Among those voters, he wins support from 45%, compared to 28% for Clinton and 15% for Nader. McCain wins 79% support from Republicans, while Clinton wins 75% support from Democrats.
Clinton leads only among those voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters over age 30. Nader also does well among the young, winning 12% support among those under age 30. Among men, McCain leads 51% to 33% for Clinton. Among women, Clinton leads, 45% to 40% for McCain. Nader wins 8% among men and 3% among women.
Nader also does particularly well as a third-party candidate among progressives, winning 15% support from the group that would very likely otherwise go to Clinton were he not in the race. At the other end of the ideological scale, he wins 12% among libertarians. He also wins 6% support among both conservatives and liberals.
Prospective General Election Match-up
3-13/14
McCain
44%
Obama
39%
Nader
5%
Not sure/Someone else
11%
In the McCain-Obama-Nader match-up, the independent candidate is having the same effect. Nader wins 15% support among political independents nationwide.
Ideologically, Nader wins 18% support among progressives, and 12% among libertarians. He does less well among mainline conservatives and liberals compared to the match-up including Clinton.
An interesting factor in this race: the inroads McCain has made into Obama’s base and vice versa. McCain wins 19% support from Democrats, while Obama captures just 67% of voters in his own party. Obama wins 15% support among Republicans, compared to 73% for McCain.
As is the case in the McCain-Clinton-Nader contest, Obama wins among voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters age 30 and older. Nader wins 15% support among those under age 30, but has little support among older voters.
Among men, McCain leads Obama 48% to 34%, while Obama holds a slim 43% to 41% edge over McCain among women. Nader wins 6% among men and 4% among women.
Zogby Poll: McCain Bests Both Obama, Clinton in 3-Way General Election Tests
Independent candidate Ralph Nader wins 5%, taking more support from Democrats
UTICA, New York – Riding high after locking up his party’s presidential nomination, Republican John McCain of Arizona has moved ahead of both of his potential Democratic Party rivals in a national general election test, the latest Zogby telephone survey shows.
Perhaps profiting from the continuing political battle across the aisle, McCain would defeat Hillary Clinton of New York by six points and Barack Obama of Illinois by 5 points, the survey shows. Clinton and Obama are locked in a tight battle to win the Democratic Party nomination, a fight that has grown nasty at times recently and threatens to continue on all summer long until the party’s national convention in Denver this August.
The telephone survey of 1,001 likely voters nationwide was conducted by live operators calling from Zogby’s call center in Upstate New York on March 13-14, 2008. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points.
Prospective General Election Match-up
3-13/14
McCain
45%
Clinton
39%
Nader
6%
Not sure/Someone else
11%
The introduction of long-time activist Ralph Nader into the mix is having an effect on the race, as he wins enough support to make a difference, the poll shows. Nader entered the race recently, charging that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and their presidential candidates. Using the same argument eight years ago, his presence on the ballot in Florida may well have tipped the presidential election away from Democrat Al Gore and in favor of George W. Bush. His run four years ago yielded less dramatic results, but the political atmosphere has changed since 2004, and may be more favorable for him again, the Zogby survey shows.
In the McCain-Clinton-Nader match-up, McCain leads mainly because of a significant advantage among independents. Among those voters, he wins support from 45%, compared to 28% for Clinton and 15% for Nader. McCain wins 79% support from Republicans, while Clinton wins 75% support from Democrats.
Clinton leads only among those voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters over age 30. Nader also does well among the young, winning 12% support among those under age 30. Among men, McCain leads 51% to 33% for Clinton. Among women, Clinton leads, 45% to 40% for McCain. Nader wins 8% among men and 3% among women.
Nader also does particularly well as a third-party candidate among progressives, winning 15% support from the group that would very likely otherwise go to Clinton were he not in the race. At the other end of the ideological scale, he wins 12% among libertarians. He also wins 6% support among both conservatives and liberals.
Prospective General Election Match-up
3-13/14
McCain
44%
Obama
39%
Nader
5%
Not sure/Someone else
11%
In the McCain-Obama-Nader match-up, the independent candidate is having the same effect. Nader wins 15% support among political independents nationwide.
Ideologically, Nader wins 18% support among progressives, and 12% among libertarians. He does less well among mainline conservatives and liberals compared to the match-up including Clinton.
An interesting factor in this race: the inroads McCain has made into Obama’s base and vice versa. McCain wins 19% support from Democrats, while Obama captures just 67% of voters in his own party. Obama wins 15% support among Republicans, compared to 73% for McCain.
As is the case in the McCain-Clinton-Nader contest, Obama wins among voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters age 30 and older. Nader wins 15% support among those under age 30, but has little support among older voters.
Among men, McCain leads Obama 48% to 34%, while Obama holds a slim 43% to 41% edge over McCain among women. Nader wins 6% among men and 4% among women.
I wish he had broken it down by race as well. I think that's what's driving this and the longer the Clinton/Obama mud-slinging goes on the higher Nader's number will go. As it is 5% is more than enough to swing it to McCain.
I'll admit that Zogby hasn't been the most accurate pollster in this primary season but at this point he is the only one to include Nader in the equation.
Go Ralph Go
Hey Bent, have you ever been to Stonehenge?
QUOTE (Idiot @ Mar 16 2008, 11:44 AM)
I wish he had broken it down by race as well. I think that's what's driving this and the longer the Clinton/Obama mud-slinging goes on the higher Nader's number will go. As it is 5% is more than enough to swing it to McCain.
You may be right there. As the party that has historically stood for racism and slavery, the Democrats still have a solid core of folks who will never vote for a minority candidate.
QUOTE (BMIC @ Mar 16 2008, 11:31 AM)
... the Democrats still have a solid core of folks who will never vote for a minority candidate.
They're the "Reagan Democrats", typically older, less educated, and lower income. That's who gave Clinton the advantage in Ohio and why she got 70% of the white vote is Mississippi. I expect they'll do the same in PA, WV, and KY. I've always suspected it's why the Democratic party has always scheduled those states last in the primary process.
Just my opinion. Like Phish says, we'll have to wait and see.
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Mar 16 2008, 12:43 PM)
Really? Maybe this is true only with the Democrats you know. Granted, there is one party that is far more popular in the former slave states. The Democratic party isn't it.
Dude, yes really! Go study some history. The Republican Party was formed in 1854 primarily to fight slavery and racist laws the Democrats were passing. We are rightly called the Party of Lincoln. Do a search on Dredd Scott, the Civil Rights Act, etc. Okay I'll do just a little of your homework for you. But this is all well-known history. Just a small excerpt:
"Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:
Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
And during the 60's many Democrats fought hard to defeat the
1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Court records shows that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott Decision."
And there's plenty more. Surely you have at least heard that WV's favorite pol, Robert Byrd, was a Klansman who voted against the Civil Rights Act of '64. He later claimed to have changed his spots, but not everyone believed him.
About the only thing Democrats have done to gain the trust of minorities is to support welfare programs. Oh heck, even their favorite modern issue - "choice" - has its origins in racism. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is well known for her support of Hitler-style racial winnowing by aborting black babies - and it's working, with a much higher rate of abortions among AAs than whites. We've all recently been reminded of that by the controversy over PPs willingness to take racially-motivated donations for the espressed purpose of aborting black babies.
Blacks are only just now starting to wake up and see the truth, and fleeing the Democrat's "plantation" in significant numbers.
Or at least they were, until Obama came along.
B's right. I was born and raised in KY and up until LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act they hadn't voted for a Republican in decades, for governor or president. We had a portrait of JFK on our wall, as did most of my friends. Now almost everyone I know there is a Republican. The same thing happened in a lot of southern states. Nixon took advantage of it in 1968 with the southern strategy.
Which when you think about it, they didn't change their thinking, they just changed their party. So while Bent may be right now in thinking that the Republican party has more racists, that hasn't always been the case.
Which when you think about it, they didn't change their thinking, they just changed their party. So while Bent may be right now in thinking that the Republican party has more racists, that hasn't always been the case.
QUOTE (Idiot @ Mar 16 2008, 01:14 PM)
So while Bent may be right now in thinking that the Republican party has more racists, that hasn't always been the case.
He may or may not be right. We know that with older voters there are a lot of Democrats who simply refuse to change parties, for whom today's issues are less important than staying with the Party whom their family has always supported. Many of them at least started out supporting the Dems because of their support for racist laws, and many of them are still on the rolls, usually voting Dem.
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Mar 16 2008, 01:45 PM)
Yes. Nothing draws more people to the Democratic party today then the Dred Scott decision. It's one of the cornerstone's of our party.
I said they "still have a solid core"... of racists. I wasn't referring to clueless newbie Democrats who are willfully ignorant of history in general and that of the party with whom they blindly choose to affiliate.
QUOTE (Idiot @ Mar 16 2008, 01:14 PM)
B's right.
Really, that's all anyone needs to say about it. 
We could all avoid so much pain if we'd just realize that I do know what I'm talking about. hehe!
I gave sufficient reasoning to support my contention. If you think the Democratic Party is devoid of white racists you have truly been brainwashed. The two parties are not nearly as monolithic as the MSM pretends.
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Mar 16 2008, 10:58 AM)
I wouldn't trust any poll to come from Zogby. Plus, he's buddies with McCain.
He's in the middle of the pack. In 17 contests he's been off by an average of 5%, not nearly as good as Survey USA but better than Rasmussen.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.