Bigoted Democrats may well cost Obama the election

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Bigoted Democrats may well cost Obama the election

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93AIV882&show_article=1

    "The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans. "

    "The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home—among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain."

    "Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president—white, black or brown. "

    Makes sense...While the Republican Party's very reason for existence was to end slavery, the Democratic Party for over a century was the Party of white supremacy: openly and explicitly for slavery before the Civil War, supporting lynching and "Jim Crow" laws after the war, and regularly defending segregation and white supremacy throughout most of the 20th century. Today the Democrat Party continues with its divisive race-based ideology...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobc33. Show bobc33's posts

    Bigoted Democrats may well cost Obama the election

    The Democrats have maybe the most favorable conditions there have ever been for a presidential election, and they may lose. It is truly unbelievable they put up such a sham candidate.

    A radical socialist who gives great speeches. That is perfect for the hard left wing of the Democratic party, but doesn't work so well for the vast working class ranks of the party. If things go on like this I'd expect at some point the Democratic party will splinter. The Olberman/Obama/San Francisco crowd has to grate on the unions and the working folks.

    Anyway bigotry was the topic. My guess is Obama will lose a little bit because there is a small percentage of people who won't vote for an alleged black man. This probably will be evened out by those who vote for him because he is an alleged black man. In the end I think bigotry will have nothing to do with the outcome.

    I think he'll lose because soon the American electorate will start paying attention and they will see him as the liberal radical he is, not the "uniter" he claims to be.

    I am concerned he may win because he has a lot of money to spend, the MSM is so in favor of him, and his (and the 527s) attack ads on McCain will be vicious these last few weeks. But I'm counting on the vast number of average Jill and Joe Americans to see through the sham.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Bigoted Democrats may well cost Obama the election

    [Quote]The Democrats have maybe the most favorable conditions there have ever been for a presidential election, and they may lose. It is truly unbelievable they put up such a sham candidate.

    A radical socialist who gives great speeches. That is perfect for the hard left wing of the Democratic party, but doesn't work so well for the vast working class ranks of the party. If things go on like this I'd expect at some point the Democratic party will splinter. The Olberman/Obama/San Francisco crowd has to grate on the unions and the working folks.

    Anyway bigotry was the topic. My guess is Obama will lose a little bit because there is a small percentage of people who won't vote for an alleged black man. This probably will be evened out by those who vote for him because he is an alleged black man. In the end I think bigotry will have nothing to do with the outcome.

    I think he'll lose because soon the American electorate will start paying attention and they will see him as the liberal radical he is, not the "uniter" he claims to be.

    I am concerned he may win because he has a lot of money to spend, the MSM is so in favor of him, and his (and the 527s) attack ads on McCain will be vicious these last few weeks. But I'm counting on the vast number of average Jill and Joe Americans to see through the sham.
    [/Quote]


    BobC,

    By far one the best posts I've seen by someone who isn't me!!! I've thought about the race issue. You are correct, it's a NON-issue. Racism is voting against AND for someone solely due to the color of their skin. With no actual data, just a hunch, I would go so far as to guess that there are more people who will vote FOR Obama because he is black than against him for being simply being black. This is an opinion and will never be proven, just a guess.

    Obama likes playing the victim, it's all he has beyond his efficient teleprompter, his good looks, Hollywood and his support from The View. No media outlet or liberal will EVER admit that a vote FOR Obama for simply being black is a racist vote....but it is. That would have to mean admitting that affimative action is racist too. And we know THAT will never happen.

    If Obama loses it will be because people don't think he's qualified and because they don't trust him to have the backbone and conviction to keep their babies safe. An accurate assessment.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Bigoted Democrats may well cost Obama the election

    In response to BobinVa's comment:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93AIV882&show_article=1

    Makes sense...While the Republican Party's very reason for existence was to end slavery, the Democratic Party for over a century was the Party of white supremacy: openly and explicitly for slavery before the Civil War, supporting lynching and "Jim Crow" laws after the war, and regularly defending segregation and white supremacy throughout most of the 20th century. Today the Democrat Party continues with its divisive race-based ideology...




    Hey, uh, CLC.....I thought it was "libs" who supposedly play the race card. If so, perhaps they learned it from you?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Bigoted Democrats may well cost Obama the election

    Nostalgic for 2008? Why dig out these old posts?

    My post pointed out that white Democrats didnt seem to support Obama at the same percentages as other Democrat Presidential candidates who were white...

    .....which in the context of whites in Louisiana who voted for Obama at a lower percentage (10%) than white nominees (19%), you and high road claimed proved racism...

    “As government expands, liberty contracts.”  Ronald Reagan

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Bigoted Democrats may well cost Obama the election

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Nostalgic for 2008? Why dig out these old posts?

    My post pointed out that white Democrats didnt seem to support Obama at the same percentages as other Democrat Presidential candidates who were white...

    .....which in the context of whites in Louisiana who voted for Obama at a lower percentage (10%) than white nominees (19%), you and high road claimed proved racism...

    “As government expands, liberty contracts.”  Ronald Reagan




    Your post was about wingnuts trying to inject race into the election.

    Obama won the election by 7% of the popular vote ...  garnered 69 million total votes, the highest total ever in a PotUS election ... and won 100% more electoral votes than McCain.

     

    He won 80% of the white Dem vote ... tied at 48% of white independents ... and won 80% of all other ethnicities.

    What Dem candidate has scored higher in those demos?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Bigoted Democrats may well cost Obama the election

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Why dig out these old posts?

    To confirm or deny whether completely unsupported claims certain conservatives here regularly make about "libs under Bush" in general had any weight.

    So, for example, when the claim was "libs under Bush complain about gas prices", I go back and find that it was conservatives complaining about gas prices under a Democrat congress, and conservatives complaining about what gas prices will be under Obama.

    When the claim is "libs use the race card," I go back and instead find conservatives using the race card. Specifically, here the conservative who most frequently uses and makes accusations of using "race cards."

    I find demands that Obama be impeached in October 2008 (go figure).

    I basically find no examples of libs doing as accused, and instead a few examples of conservatives doing what they accuse the nebulous libs of.I guess it's a rather obnoxious that when an accused lib makes an unsupported claim, it's "making &*#$ up"; when a conservative does it, its cool, because we all remember those dirty libs. And it doesn't matter if it's nonsense.A serious remark about "libs under Bush" goes unchallenged; make a sarcastic reference to Kenyan muslims (despite poll results) and watch out!

     

     

     In short: The bi-annual test of whether BDC's posting rules still depend on the letter next to the name.

     

     

    Replace the "2" with any number up to 527 and you can jump back to threads as old as 1/1/08:

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/80/990?page=2

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share