I think it's past obvious at this point that the Republican Party has given up on competing for the Black vote. Just watching their response to the Supreme Court's striking down pre clearance in the Voting Rights Act shows they've given up the fight. We don't even get the half ass effort like they give Latinos. They have decided their best strategy is to block Black voters from voting instead of competing and I find that offensive and immoral. So can we stop pretending they care anything about liberties or freedom or any of those ridiculous soundbites they spew?
The GOP will never get Black voters and they don't want us
- Thread starter Upgrade Dave
- Start date
You are spot on sir. What's really sickening is how they get their house negroes to say the same racist shit in public to black folks to fool us, like that idiot running for Lt. Gov in VA.
If I may allow Michael Steele to speak:
<font size="5"><Center>
GOP chairman: African-Americans
not given good reason to vote for party </font size></center>
RNC Chairman Michael Steele (Credit: AP)
Chicago Sun-Times
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH
Political Reporter
April 20, 2010
<font size="3">Why should an African-American vote Republican?</font size>
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"You really don't have a reason to, to be honest -- we haven't done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True,"</span> Republican National Chairman Michael Steele told 200 DePaul University students Tuesday night.
Steele -- a former Maryland lieutenant governor and seminarian serving as the first African-American head of the Republican Party -- offered a frank assessment of the American political system.
Steele . . . talked about his own experience suffering racial discrimination -- in his first law firm interview for example -- and when he confessed his party's failure to reach out to African-Americans:
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"We have lost sight of the historic, integral link between the party and African-Americans,"</span> Steele said. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"This party was co-founded by blacks, among them Frederick Douglass. The Republican Party had a hand in forming the NAACP, and yet we have mistreated that relationship. People don't walk away from parties, Their parties walk away from them</span>.
"For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, 'Bubba' went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton."
there's really no reason to want our vote. The Latino vote is far more valuable due to their spiraling population numbers. We only make up about 11 to 13 percent of the population of this country. If you take away incarcerated black males that number goes down to six to seven percent. So in reality the black vote really isn't worth fighting for for the Republican Party.
I was coming in to say SOME of this.....
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent Skyblue Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
When did they ever cater to Latino voters?
It is the party of the rich, the racist, and the redneck.
That's it.
That's about the same number as Latinos and with us voting in near record levels while White voter rates are stagnant and with so many of us concentrated in the South and cities, there is much value to the Black vote. Clearly enough for them to work so hard to block us from voting.
They may feel like it's not worth fighting for but that will only maintain their streak of national election defeats and eventually endanger even their current status as a South dominated party.
Can they make it any plainer?
source: Daily Kos
Dallas Tea Party leader: "The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote..." (updatedx2)
Based on another audio clip from the "Battlefield Dallas" meeting that Battleground Texas just posted, it is evident that the TX GOP is no longer even trying to pretend that they're not waging a war on black voters:
I'll wait while you click here to listen to Emanuelson's remarks yourself and read the excellent post by Cliff Walker, Political Director for BGTX.
source: Daily Kos
Dallas Tea Party leader: "The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote..." (updatedx2)
Based on another audio clip from the "Battlefield Dallas" meeting that Battleground Texas just posted, it is evident that the TX GOP is no longer even trying to pretend that they're not waging a war on black voters:
Question: "What are the Republicans doing to get black people to vote?" Ken Emanuelson: "Well, I'm going to be real honest with you: The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote, if they're going to vote 9 to 1 for Democrats."
I'll give Emanuelson that much: His reply was certainly honest. No pretense from him that the Republican Party is going to bother trying to persuade black Texans to vote for them. And just in case you think Emanuelson, a leading Dallas Tea Party organizer, was going rogue or something—he was speaking at the same "Battlefield Dallas" event where Steve Munisteri, chair of the Republican Party of Texas, acknowledged that Texas will be a battleground state.
I'll wait while you click here to listen to Emanuelson's remarks yourself and read the excellent post by Cliff Walker, Political Director for BGTX.
Last edited:
I think that's pretty clear.
THIS
My Republican Party has abandoned me
By Raynard Jackson
(NNPA)—During the past year, as my columns have been syndicated to more outlets throughout the world, I have been asked by many leaders in the Republican Party why I am so critical of our party. The short answer is that I am very concerned about the direction my party is taking. It has increasingly become the party of old, White, balding males.
To those I have had these conversations with, my response was quite pointed, “Stop questioning my motives and address the issues that I write about.”
Last week, John Sununu made another racially incendiary comment towards a prominent Black. First, he called President Obama “lazy” and now accuses Colin Powell of supporting Obama only because Obama is Black. Sununu is national co-chair for Romney’s presidential campaign. What has been Romney‘s response to Sununu’s rhetoric? Absolutely nothing. Whether Obama and Powell are Black is not the issue; Sununu’s use of race-baiting language is unacceptable.
Romney’s refusal to distance himself from the likes of Sununu, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, or Sarah Palin is repulsive to me. We are supposed to be a party of principles. Does Romney want to be president so bad that he is willing to forfeit these principles in order to win an election?
Do Romney and the Republican Party not understand or care that Sununu has thoroughly offended Blacks specifically with his comments about Obama and Powell; but also Americans of good will in general. Why is my party loyalty always called into question when I criticize a Republican who crosses the line into racially charged language?
Fortunately, there are a few White Republicans willing to stand up to Sununu. Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Ed Schultz on MSNBC, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that’s despicable.”</span>
It’s too bad that Romney does not exemplify that same courage.
I am a Child of God first, then an American, and then a Republican. I will not check my Blackness at the door because I am a Republican. The language coming from Sununu and my party is counter to the founding principles of the party that I am a proud member of.
I joined the Republican Party upon graduating from Oral Roberts University because I believed in the principles the party espoused: lower taxes, especially for job creation for small businesses; equality of opportunity for all; a party based on Christian principles, to name a few.
I was brought into the Republican Party by the likes of Bill White, Curtis Crawford, Art Fletcher, Ed Brooke, Bill Coleman, and Sam Cornelius. These are legendary Black Republicans who are responsible for me being where I am today.
Once in the party, I was further schooled on Republican principles by the likes of William H.T. “Bucky” Bush (brother to Bush 41), Bert Walker (cousin to Bush 41), George H.W. Bush, Robert Mosbacher (former Secretary of Commerce), James M. Baker (former Secretary of State), and Jack Kemp, just to name a few.
Sununu could not have existed in the Party that I joined in the 1980s. Donald Trump would not have been allowed to have a role in the party that I joined.
Mitt Romney and all the other leaders of the party are too afraid of taking principled stands when it comes to Blacks and issues of race. They are too afraid of alienating the right wing of the party.
I will not vote for Obama because he has totally insulted the Black community at every opportunity (I refer you to his speech before the Congressional Black Caucus last year as exhibit A); and I cannot vote for Mitt Romney because he has, with his silence, endorsed the behavior of the likes of Sununu, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
I take my stand based on my principles. Romney and the Republican Party, what are you basing your stand on?
To those I have had these conversations with, my response was quite pointed, “Stop questioning my motives and address the issues that I write about.”
Last week, John Sununu made another racially incendiary comment towards a prominent Black. First, he called President Obama “lazy” and now accuses Colin Powell of supporting Obama only because Obama is Black. Sununu is national co-chair for Romney’s presidential campaign. What has been Romney‘s response to Sununu’s rhetoric? Absolutely nothing. Whether Obama and Powell are Black is not the issue; Sununu’s use of race-baiting language is unacceptable.
Romney’s refusal to distance himself from the likes of Sununu, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, or Sarah Palin is repulsive to me. We are supposed to be a party of principles. Does Romney want to be president so bad that he is willing to forfeit these principles in order to win an election?
Do Romney and the Republican Party not understand or care that Sununu has thoroughly offended Blacks specifically with his comments about Obama and Powell; but also Americans of good will in general. Why is my party loyalty always called into question when I criticize a Republican who crosses the line into racially charged language?
Fortunately, there are a few White Republicans willing to stand up to Sununu. Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Ed Schultz on MSNBC, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that’s despicable.”</span>
It’s too bad that Romney does not exemplify that same courage.
I am a Child of God first, then an American, and then a Republican. I will not check my Blackness at the door because I am a Republican. The language coming from Sununu and my party is counter to the founding principles of the party that I am a proud member of.
For many years, I have approached the party and its supporters about underwriting programs to bring together Blacks who are Republican or lean Republican so we can weave them into every facet of the party structure. The answer is always, no!
But, twice this year some of these same people have approached me about funding for some election year tricks that they (White Republicans) have conjured up and simply need a Black face to execute the plan. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">On these two separate occasions, these funders were willing to spend upwards of $20 million to have me organize a national campaign to identify Blacks who would be critical of President Obama.</span>
I was deeply offended by these approaches, but it’s not the first time in my life that I have had similar conversations within the party. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">So, the party and its funders will spend millions on negative initiatives within the Black community, but are not willing to spend a fraction of that amount on something substantive and positive.</span> Interesting, to say the least.
But, twice this year some of these same people have approached me about funding for some election year tricks that they (White Republicans) have conjured up and simply need a Black face to execute the plan. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">On these two separate occasions, these funders were willing to spend upwards of $20 million to have me organize a national campaign to identify Blacks who would be critical of President Obama.</span>
I was deeply offended by these approaches, but it’s not the first time in my life that I have had similar conversations within the party. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">So, the party and its funders will spend millions on negative initiatives within the Black community, but are not willing to spend a fraction of that amount on something substantive and positive.</span> Interesting, to say the least.
I joined the Republican Party upon graduating from Oral Roberts University because I believed in the principles the party espoused: lower taxes, especially for job creation for small businesses; equality of opportunity for all; a party based on Christian principles, to name a few.
I was brought into the Republican Party by the likes of Bill White, Curtis Crawford, Art Fletcher, Ed Brooke, Bill Coleman, and Sam Cornelius. These are legendary Black Republicans who are responsible for me being where I am today.
Once in the party, I was further schooled on Republican principles by the likes of William H.T. “Bucky” Bush (brother to Bush 41), Bert Walker (cousin to Bush 41), George H.W. Bush, Robert Mosbacher (former Secretary of Commerce), James M. Baker (former Secretary of State), and Jack Kemp, just to name a few.
Sununu could not have existed in the Party that I joined in the 1980s. Donald Trump would not have been allowed to have a role in the party that I joined.
Mitt Romney and all the other leaders of the party are too afraid of taking principled stands when it comes to Blacks and issues of race. They are too afraid of alienating the right wing of the party.
I will not vote for Obama because he has totally insulted the Black community at every opportunity (I refer you to his speech before the Congressional Black Caucus last year as exhibit A); and I cannot vote for Mitt Romney because he has, with his silence, endorsed the behavior of the likes of Sununu, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
I take my stand based on my principles. Romney and the Republican Party, what are you basing your stand on?
SOURCE - Pittsburg Courier
_________________________________________
Raynard Jackson is a Republican political consultant based in Washington, DC. He has been involved in every Republican presidential campaign from George H. W. Bush to George W. Bush. He has also worked on many Republican senate, governor, and congressional campaigns across the country.
He is the president and CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC (RJA). This is Government Relations and Public Relations firm based in Washington, DC. They not only work with politicians, but also represent professional athletes and entertainers. RJA also works with foreign governments, especially in Africa, helping them improve their relations with the U.S.
Jackson can been seen regularly on TV shows,both nationally and internationally, giving his analysis on subjects from politics, culture, foreign policy, and economics. He has been on CNN, MSNBC, BET, FOX News, C-SPAN, etc. He has also served as a regular political analyst for the CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, WUSA*9. He also host his own internet based radio show on U.S. Talk Network. He has been named to Talkers Magazine's "Frontier Fifty Talk Show Hosts (http://talkers.com/online/?p=542)." This award was given to the top 50 internet radio hosts. Jackson also does a weekly newspaper column that is published nationwide and in several European and African newspapers.
Jackson is a native of St. Louis. He graduated from Soldan High School; received his B.S. in accounting from Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK (www.oru.edu); and received his M.A. in International Business from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA (www.gmu.edu).
Awww dey don wan me...
boo hooo
boo boo hoo
boo hooty and the boo fish boo hooo
I will really miss their love....
wait a minute republicans are incapable of love..
Im Good!
boo hooo
boo boo hoo
boo hooty and the boo fish boo hooo
I will really miss their love....
wait a minute republicans are incapable of love..
Im Good!
Wait until they feel really cornered, because the demographics will get progressively worse from their point of view. The pandering will be unlike anything you've ever seen.
source: Mother Jones
Texas AG: We Don't Hate Blacks, Only Black Democrats
Ever since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, Texas has been required to preclear any changes to its voting laws to ensure that they don't discriminate against blacks or other ethnic minorities. That ended in June when the Supreme Court voided the preclearance formula of the VRA, so Eric Holder has gone to court to ask that Texas be required once again to get preclearance. The current leaders of Texas, naturally, object. So in the face of mountains of evidence of discriminatory practices lasting all the way to the present day, what are their arguments?
Aside from some technical issues, there are two. And they're great! The first, according to Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, is that, sure, Texas has tried to discriminate as recently as 2011, but their efforts were overturned by a court. So that means there are no current violations, and thus no reason to grant any kind of "equitable relief." Second, there was never any racial intent to begin with:
Abbott's arguments are pretty strained, as Fasman notes. Whether a court will strain to accept them is anyone's guess. They sure seem to be in a pretty straining mood these days, though.
Texas AG: We Don't Hate Blacks, Only Black Democrats
Ever since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, Texas has been required to preclear any changes to its voting laws to ensure that they don't discriminate against blacks or other ethnic minorities. That ended in June when the Supreme Court voided the preclearance formula of the VRA, so Eric Holder has gone to court to ask that Texas be required once again to get preclearance. The current leaders of Texas, naturally, object. So in the face of mountains of evidence of discriminatory practices lasting all the way to the present day, what are their arguments?
Aside from some technical issues, there are two. And they're great! The first, according to Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, is that, sure, Texas has tried to discriminate as recently as 2011, but their efforts were overturned by a court. So that means there are no current violations, and thus no reason to grant any kind of "equitable relief." Second, there was never any racial intent to begin with:
DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats....The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations, and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary.
There's much more where that came from, including pages and pages of detailed defenses of various districting decisions and how they hurt white Democrats too. Will this argument pass judicial muster? You never know. The Supreme Court has indeed taken a pretty casual attitude recently toward voting laws in which states argue that blacks are just a kind of collateral damage. Mainly, though, Abbott's brief is notable for the gusto he brings to his defense of gerrymandering. As Jon Fasman notes, "Rarely does one see political gamesmanship admitted so openly, and I have to admit it's kind of refreshing to hear a politician decline to even pay lip-service to fairness. Mr Abbott seems to think that the VRA allows him to abrogate minority voting rights as long as he does so for partisan rather than overtly, provably racial reasons."
Abbott's arguments are pretty strained, as Fasman notes. Whether a court will strain to accept them is anyone's guess. They sure seem to be in a pretty straining mood these days, though.
And,
Obama "hates white people," -- Gov. Paul LePage of Maine told a group of Republicans last week.
I agree. By the way...
"A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side."-Joseph Addison
Sometimes there is absolutely no virtue or truth on the other side.
When u think about it they haven't wanted our vote since Nixon ran for office. His campaign manager said as much.
Their whole base shifted when they became the party that wouldn't stand in the way of the racists whites and their opposition of the civil rights act. They decided they would turn the blind eye to these crackers' fuckery and it won them the south and the presidential election.
Dudes ain't gave a fuck about us then and they still don't now. So fuck the GOP.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4
Their whole base shifted when they became the party that wouldn't stand in the way of the racists whites and their opposition of the civil rights act. They decided they would turn the blind eye to these crackers' fuckery and it won them the south and the presidential election.
Dudes ain't gave a fuck about us then and they still don't now. So fuck the GOP.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 4
Colin Powell
One Republican To Another
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell shook up North Carolina’s annual CEO Forum on Thursday with pointed criticisms of the state’s new voting law, which critics say was designed to make it harder for minorities and students to vote.
Saying he was speaking as a Republican, Powell warned that North Carolina’s new voting restrictions will hurt the Republican Party, punish minority voters and make it more difficult for North Carolinians to cast a vote.
Saying he was speaking as a Republican, Powell warned that North Carolina’s new voting restrictions will hurt the Republican Party, punish minority voters and make it more difficult for North Carolinians to cast a vote.
I want to see policies that encourage every American to vote, not make it more difficult to vote,” Powell told an audience of 430 at Raleigh’s North Ridge Country Club.
“It immediately turns off a voting bloc the Republican Party needs,” Powell continued in his keynote speech. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“These kinds of actions do not build on the base. It just turns people away.”</span>
“You can say what you like, but <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">there is no voter fraud,”</span> Powell said. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“How can it be widespread and undetected?”</span>
Powell also said the new law sends the wrong message to minority voters. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“What it really says to the minority voters is ... ‘We really are sort-of punishing you,’ ”</span> he said. “North Carolina has a pretty fine system without photo ID.”
“It immediately turns off a voting bloc the Republican Party needs,” Powell continued in his keynote speech. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“These kinds of actions do not build on the base. It just turns people away.”</span>
“You can say what you like, but <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">there is no voter fraud,”</span> Powell said. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“How can it be widespread and undetected?”</span>
Powell also said the new law sends the wrong message to minority voters. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">“What it really says to the minority voters is ... ‘We really are sort-of punishing you,’ ”</span> he said. “North Carolina has a pretty fine system without photo ID.”
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/22/3127638/colin-powell-slams-ncs-new-voting.html#storylink=cpy
<param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=52824176&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc94a19d" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=52824176&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
I agree. By the way...
"A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side."-Joseph Addison
Sometimes there is absolutely no virtue or truth on the other side.
Man, Addison said that over 200 years before the invention of Fox News and conservative talk radio.
That only applies to arguments between intelligent adults.
The GOP will never get Black voters and they don't want us
Republicans Can't Win With White Voters Alone
An influential set of conservatives argues changing demographics won't doom the GOP,
but the smart money -- and the math -- are not on their side.
This much is undisputed:
- In 2012, President Obama lost white voters by a larger margin than any winning presidential candidate in U.S. history. In his reelection, Obama lost ground from 2008 with almost every conceivable segment of the white electorate. With several key groups of whites, he recorded the weakest national performance for any Democratic nominee since the Republican landslides of the 1980s.
- In 2012, Obama won a smaller share of white Catholics than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1980; lost groups ranging from white seniors to white women to white married and blue-collar men by the widest margin of any Democrat since Ronald Reagan routed Walter Mondale in 1984; and even lost among Democratic-leaning college-educated women by the widest margin since Michael Dukakis in 1988, according to the latest National Journal analysis of the trends that shape the allegiances of American voters.
And yet, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">behind rousing support from minorities everywhere</span>, and often much more competitive showings among whites in both Democratic-leaning and battleground states, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Obama not only won reelection but won fairly comfortably</span>.
Few decisions may carry greater consequences for the Republican Party in 2016 than how it interprets these facts.
The key question facing the GOP is whether Obama's 2012
performance represents a structural Democratic decline
among whites that could deepen even further in the years
ahead -- or a floor from which the next Democratic nominee
is likely to improve.
In recent months, a chorus of conservative analysts has bet on the first option. They insist that Republicans, by improving both turnout and already-gaping margins among whites, can recapture the White House in 2016 without reformulating their agenda to attract more minority voters -- most prominently by passing immigration-reform legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally. On the other side is an array of Republican strategists who view minority outreach and immigration reform as critical to restoring the party's competitiveness -- and consider it suicidal for the GOP to bet its future on the prospect that it can squeeze even larger advantages out of the diminishing pool of white voters. Karl Rove, the chief strategist for George W. Bush's two presidential victories, has noted that relying entirely on whites would soon require Republicans to regularly match the towering advantage Reagan recorded among them when he lost only a single state in his 1984 reelection. "It's unreasonable to expect Republicans to routinely pull numbers that last occurred in a 49-state sweep," Rove said at the Aspen Ideas Festival this summer.
The results of previous elections can't forecast how voters will divide next time. But they do show clear trends in both the electorate's composition and the preferences that will shape the competition between the parties in 2016 and beyond. To better understand these dynamics, National Journal has updated a project we conducted in 2008 and 2012 that analyzed, in unusual detail, the fault lines among American voters. In those initial reports, titled "The Hidden History of the American Electorate," we examined the results from the general-election exit polls conducted by news organizations in every presidential campaign from 1980 through 2008. In this latest report, we expand the analysis to include the results of the national and state 2012 National Election Pool exit poll conducted for a consortium of media organizations by Edison Research. The poll surveyed 26,565 voters at 350 polling places on Election Day, and another 4,408 absentee and early voters through a telephone survey.
Because the exit poll includes so many more voters than a typical survey, this effort allows us to explore much more finely grained shifts among voters than are usually available -- the evolving preferences, for instance, not only of Hispanics overall but of those with and without college degrees, or the (substantial) differences between college-educated white women who are single and those who are married. The result is a uniquely panoramic look at the fluctuating boundaries of change and the insistent currents of stability over the past nine presidential elections. And that prism offers a unique perspective on the choices facing the two parties as they begin contemplating their strategies for 2016.
Who Votes?
Initially most Republican leaders viewed Obama's reelection as a demographic wake-up call for their party. They did so with good reason. Despite the lackluster economy, Obama surprised many observers by winning 51 percent of the popular vote, garnering 332 Electoral College votes, and outpolling Mitt Romney by nearly 5 million ballots. The president's victory meant that Democrats had carried the popular vote in five of the previous six presidential elections, matching the Republican record from 1968 to 1988. Obama notched striking gains among both Hispanics and Asian-Americans, equaled the overall 80 percent of nonwhite voters that he carried in 2008, and amassed a solid 60 percent majority among voters under 30 (who are themselves heavily diverse). Although many Republican analysts predicted Obama could not replicate the enthusiasm he generated in 2008, minorities and young people both increased their share of the overall vote, as whites fell to 72 percent of the electorate, the lowest level ever. All of this allowed Obama to win his unexpectedly comfortable victory, even though his performance among white voters deteriorated from 43 percent in 2008 to just 39 percent in 2012. Romney, by winning 59 percent of whites, roughly equaled the best performances ever among them by a Republican challenger (essentially matching Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and George H.W. Bush in 1988) and actually exceeded the 56 percent of whites that Reagan won in 1980 (although not the 64 percent peak the Gipper reached during his reelection tsunami).
Numbers such as these prompted the "Growth and Opportunity" internal review commission, which Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus appointed after the 2012 election, to conclude: "The nation's demographic changes add to the urgency of recognizing how precarious our position has become…. Unless the RNC gets serious about tackling this problem, we will lose future elections; the data demonstrates this." That same concern about regaining ground among minority voters, particularly Hispanics, encouraged the participation of four Republican senators (led by Florida's Marco Rubio) in the bipartisan Senate "Gang of Eight" that began negotiating immigration reform.
But through 2013, the sense of demographic urgency inside the GOP has palpably dissipated. Instead, an array of conservative analysts has advanced a competing theory for Romney's defeat: He failed to generate a big enough margin among whites. Sean Trende, a writer for the conservative-leaning website RealClearPolitics, has promulgated the most comprehensive version of this argument. Using census figures, Trende insists that Romney failed to turn out about 5 million to 6.5 million white voters who should have voted, most of them "downscale, Northern, rural whites" demographically similar to voters who flocked to Ross Perot in 1992.
Though Trende heavily cross-stitched his pieces with caveats and qualifications, at bottom he argued that Republicans were less likely to recapture the White House by gaining among minorities than by improving both turnout and vote-share among whites -- which he suggested could reach as high as 70 percent. "It seems a bit touchy to assume that Republicans will max out at around 60 percent of the white vote," he wrote. "This might be the case, but ... it's entirely possible that as our nation becomes more diverse, our political coalitions will increasingly fracture along racial/ethnic lines rather than ideological ones .... I don't see any compelling reason why these trends can't continue, and why a Republican couldn't begin to approach Ronald Reagan's 30-point win with whites from 1984 in a more neutral environment than Reagan enjoyed."
Trende's piece has inspired fierce and increasingly Talmudic exchanges with Democratic electoral analysts (who mostly have argued that he confused an overall decline in turnout rates from 2008 to 2012 with a particular Republican problem among whites). But his analysis has become a rallying cry for conservative activists who reject the view that the 2012 result proved that the party must adjust its message to appeal to more minority and young voters by, among other things, enacting immigration reform.
Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, and William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, crystallized that argument in July when they penned an unusual joint editorial opposing the Senate immigration bill. "At the presidential level in 2016, it would be better if Republicans won more Hispanic voters than they have in the past -- but it's most important that the party perform better among working-class and younger voters concerned about economic opportunity and upward mobility," they wrote. "Passing this unworkable, ramshackle bill is counterproductive or irrelevant to that task." Talk-show host Steve Deace, a leading Iowa conservative, observed that "the real reason" Romney lost was not his meager performance with minorities but that he "did so poorly turning out the GOP base." The ascent of this view inside the GOP helps explain why most House Republicans have so firmly resisted immigration reform -- and why, after all of the Senate's bipartisan negotiation, just 14 of the 45 GOP senators ultimately backed the immigration legislation, nine fewer than supported a similar comprehensive plan under Bush in 2006.
The Great White Hope
Can Republicans bet their future primarily on the notion that the party can amass even bigger advantages with whites? The answer depends on two distinct factors: turnout and vote-share.
The past two elections have offered Republicans many encouraging signs about their standing with whites. In 2010, exit polls showed that Republicans carried 60 percent of white voters in congressional races -- their best showing ever, in both exit polls since the 1970s and in the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies tracing back to 1948. In 2012, while winning a comparable 59 percent among whites, Romney displayed dominant strength with groups that usually tilt toward the GOP, particularly married, noncollege, and older whites. With some of these groups, the NJ analysis shows, Obama sank to depths Democrats haven't experienced since the Reagan and George H.W. Bush landslides.
Obama, for instance, lost noncollege white men -- once the brawny backbone of the New Deal-era Democratic coalition -- by a crushing 31 percentage points, the widest deficit since 1984. He lost married white men and married white women by the largest margins for his party since 1984. He lost whites nearing retirement by the widest margin since 1988, and white seniors by the most since 1984. Among older working-class whites (those without college degrees age 45 or older), he faced even larger deficits than Mondale did against Reagan. Likewise, the analysis shows, Obama lost white Catholics, once considered perhaps the single most decisive swing group, by a larger margin (19 points) than Mondale did. Obama didn't sink to record deficits among two other GOP-leaning groups -- college-educated white men and noncollege white women -- but he lost each by around 20 percentage points.
Even among the portions of the white community generally open to Democrats, Obama's performance flagged. After running essentially even among single white men in 2008, he lost them by 8 points in 2012 -- the party's weakest showing since 2000. His margin among white single women (ordinarily one of the Democrats' best groups) fell from 19 percentage points in 2008 to just 6 in 2012, the party's smallest advantage since 1988. Likewise, after carrying college-educated white women his first time, Obama lost them in 2012 by 6 percentage points, the party's biggest deficit since 1988. His overall deficit among white women spiked to 14 percentage points, double the level in 2008 and the biggest shortfall the party has faced since Mondale. Among whites younger than 30, Obama fell from a 10-point advantage in 2008 to a 7-point loss in 2012. Among whites in households with a union member, the exit poll found, Obama edged Romney by just 2 percentage points.
Some of these results look like hardening patterns. Romney's performance slightly stretched, but largely continued, trends in which recent Republican nominees have averaged huge advantages among married white men (almost 31 percentage points since 2000); married white women (more than 21 percentage points since 2004); noncollege white men (over 27 points since 2000); college white men (almost 20 points since 2000); and noncollege white women, the so-called waitress moms (19 points since 2004). As the Silent Generation that came of age under Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower succeeds the "GI Generation" forged under Franklin Roosevelt, the political orientation of white seniors has also clearly transformed: Although Bill Clinton carried white seniors in each of his two campaigns, a majority of them have voted Republican in all four elections since then, each time by a wider margin. Romney became the first GOP nominee since Reagan in 1984 to cross the 60 percent threshold with this group. Republicans look as well positioned with the older baby boomers near retirement.
Yet these advantages, while commanding, can also provide Republicans an exaggerated sense of comfort. On both the turnout and margin fronts, a whites-first strategy would face entrenched, structural challenges. For Republicans to increase the white share of the electorate in 2016 or beyond would require them to reverse the virtually uninterrupted trajectory of the past three decades. According to the NJ exit-poll analysis, the white share of the total vote has declined in every election since 1980, except in 1992, when it ticked up to 88 percent (from 85 percent in 1988) amid the interest in Perot's quirky third-party bid. Otherwise, this decline has persisted through years of both high and low overall turnout. Even in 2004, when George W. Bush's state-of-the-art microtargeting and turnout operation allowed Republicans to equal Democrats as a share of the total vote for the only time in the history of polling, whites' share dropped 4 percentage points from 2000. Throughout 2012, many Republicans anticipated that the white proportion of the vote would increase from 2008 and even quietly based their polling on that assumption; but, ultimately, the white share of the vote followed the long-term trend and fell to 72 percent -- exactly the level that Obama campaign manager Jim Messina projected early in the year. In a mirrored development, the minority share of the vote rose to 28 percent, 2 percentage points above 2008 and more than double the 12 percent level for Bill Clinton's first victory in 1992.
The challenge for Republicans hoping to reverse these voting trends is that they reflect tectonic shifts in the overall population. Although the change in the electorate has trailed the change in the total population, the two lines have moved in parallel. From 1996 to 2012, according to census figures, the white share of the eligible voting population (citizens who are older than 18) has dropped about 2 percentage points every four years, from 79.2 percent to 71.1 percent; over that same period, whites have declined as a share of actual voters from 83 percent to 74 percent (according to census figures) or even 72 percent (according to the exit polls). With minorities expected to make up a majority of America's 18 and younger population in this decade, all signs point toward a continued decline in the white share of the eligible voter population -- which suggests the GOP would have to marshal heroic turnout efforts to avoid further decline in the white vote-share. If the electorate's composition follows the trend over the past two decades, minorities would likely constitute 30 percent of the vote in 2016.
With one exception, Republican nominees since the 1970s have shown only modest appeal to that growing population. In both 2008 and 2012, Obama won a combined 80 percent of minority voters. In fact, as ABC pollster Gary Langer notes, the Democratic nominee has won between 78 percent and 82 percent of the two-party vote among nonwhites in every election since 1976, except in 2004, when Bush's strong minority appeal held John Kerry to just 71 percent.
SOURCE: The Atlantic
The GOP will never get Black voters and they don't want us
Republicans Can't Win With White Voters Alone
An influential set of conservatives argues changing demographics won't doom the GOP,
but the smart money -- and the math -- are not on their side.
Shades of Blue
The "Hidden History" analysis shows very few cracks in the Democratic dominance among both African-American and Hispanic voters in 2012. Even among groups in the African-American community in which Republicans had displayed at least some presence from 1980 through 2004 -- men, those with a college education, and those who are married -- the GOP registered little more than trace support in each of the two contests against Obama. In each of his two races, Obama won an astounding 96 percent among African-American women, but the Democratic nominee has reached at least 90 percent among these voters in every election since 2000.
Likewise, Romney faced broad repudiation from Hispanics. Obama won nearly two-thirds of Hispanic men and more than three-fourths of Hispanic women. Each of those numbers represented the Democrats' best performance since 1996. Obama slipped somewhat from 2008 among married Hispanics, but he still exceeded the Democrats' two showings against George W. Bush. The only signs of encouragement for Republicans: During the rout, Romney gained ground from 2008 with college-educated Hispanic men (falling just short of Bush's level with them in 2004) and also attracted just over 40 percent of Hispanic Protestants, many of them evangelical social conservatives. Still, Catholics remain the largest group among Hispanics, and among them Romney drew only 21 percent, less than any GOP nominee since 1980 (except for Bob Dole in the three-way race of 1996).
All of these results map the depth of the minority-voter hole confronting Republicans -- and the daunting math they will face if they can't recover at least somewhat. If minorities reach 30 percent of the vote next time, and the 2016 Democratic nominee again attracts support from roughly 80 percent of them, he or she would need to capture only 37 percent of whites to win a majority of the popular vote. In that scenario, to win a national majority, the GOP would need almost 63 percent of whites. Since 1976, the only Republican who has reached even 60 percent among whites was Reagan (with his 64 percent in 1984). Since Reagan's peak, the Democratic share of the white vote has varied only between 39 percent (Obama in 2012 and Clinton in the three-way election of 1992), and 43 percent (Obama in 2008 and Clinton in 1996).
Changes Among Whites
To shatter that band, and return to the margins among whites they enjoyed under Reagan, Republicans would need to overcome another set of demographic changes. Just as the overall composition of the country is changing, so is the nature of the white electorate. These changes are generally displacing white groups that vote overwhelmingly Republican with white groups in which Democrats run more competitively. That dynamic makes the recent GOP performance among whites even more impressive -- but also shows the difficulty of climbing still further. The shifts are visible across several dimensions. Republicans now reliably run better among whites without a college education than those with at least a four-year degree. In 1984, those noncollege whites represented 62 percent of the total vote, while college-educated whites constituted just 27 percent. That meant working-class whites represented more than two-thirds of all white voters. But since then, according to the exit polls, the share of the vote cast by those working-class whites has declined in every election except 2000, hitting a low of 36 percent in 2012. Meanwhile, the share of college-educated whites grew through the 1990s and has fluctuated in a narrow range since. In 2012, the exit poll found, college-educated whites also cast 36 percent of the vote, marking the first time they have equaled working-class whites.
Similarly, every Democratic nominee since 1980 has run better among white women than white men. While white men and women represented equal shares of the vote in 1984, in 2012 the women (at 38 percent) outvoted the men (at 34 percent). Combining education and gender underscores the point. Men without a college education have become the most reliably Republican component of the white electorate; women with a college degree are the most receptive to Democrats. In 1984, those blue-collar men cast nearly three times as many votes as the white-collar women; in 2012, for the first time, the college women (at 19 percent) outvoted the noncollege men (at 17 percent). Given that the share of white adults with at least a four-year degree has increased in every year since 1981 except two, and that women are garnering nearly three-fifths of those degrees, this gap is likely to widen.
Marital status pushes in the same direction less dramatically. Every Democratic nominee since 1980 has run better among single than married whites. In 1984, married couples represented 70 percent of all white voters; by 2012, that number slipped to 65 percent. (The decline has been especially sharp among married white men, who have voted more Republican than married women in each election since 1984.) Another trend steepening the grade for the GOP is growing secularization. Since 2000, Democrats have averaged a 32-point advantage among whites who identify with no religious tradition, and the share of them has increased from 15 percent in 2007 to 20 percent by 2012, according to studies by the Pew Research Center.
These shifts in the white electorate change each election almost imperceptibly, like the slow melting of an iceberg. But over time they add up. "Every structural change you are talking about is moving in the direction of whites improving their votes for Democrats," says Stanley B. Greenberg, the veteran Democratic pollster. "Big trends in the country -- what's happening in education, marriage, in the religious sphere -- all point to an upward trend among whites." Consider this hypothetical. If Romney had matched his 2012 performance among white men and women with and without a college degree, but those four groups still constituted the same share of the white electorate as they did in 1984, Romney's total vote among whites would have edged up to around 61 percent. That was just about the level he needed to win the popular vote.
The major countervailing force is that the share of whites in union households has steadily declined, and that white population is aging even as Republicans have widened their advantages with older whites. On the other hand, with the Democratic-leaning GI Generation dwindling, the older white voters passing out of the electorate every four years are concentrated in the Silent Generation that has voted reliably Republican in recent years. Through 2020, the younger voters replacing them will be members of the Millennial Generation (generally regarded as those born between 1981 and 2002), which has shown much more openness to Democrats. Since 2000, when the first millennials became eligible, Democrats have averaged 45 percent among whites under age 30, far more than the 36 percent they averaged with young whites during the 1980s (and much more than what they are attracting from older whites now).
This suggests that one critical variable is whether today's young white millennials will move toward the GOP as they age. Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center, which has extensively studied generational voting patterns, says there is some precedent for such a shift: Older baby boomers who came of age from the Kennedy to Nixon presidencies have shifted toward the GOP in recent elections (the youngest boomers, who reached adulthood under Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, have voted more consistently Republican). And as young people struggled in the economy, Obama's showing among younger whites did drop sharply from 2008 to 2012.
But, Dimock says, the evidence from other generations doesn't support the notion that voters "inherently [drift] Republican as they age." Moreover, he says, the liberal-leaning positions the millennial generation expresses on social issues remain a barrier to further Republican inroads with them. "Young people are not off-the-scale liberal when it comes to the social safety net or government programs, but there is a really strong pull from those social issues," he says. Dimock notes that the generation following the millennials, which is reaching awareness amid the political stalemate and economic struggles of the Obama years, may not replicate their older siblings' Democratic leanings -- but they can't vote at all until after 2020 and won't participate in large numbers until after that.
Geography poses another complication for a whites-first GOP strategy: Even if the Republican Party can further expand its overall national advantage among whites, its another thing to do so in the states critical to the Democratic presidential victories over the past two decades. Romney's national margins among the various groups of white voters are inflated by Obama's utter collapse in the country's most conservative regions, particularly the South (where the president won fewer than one in six whites in Alabama and only one in nine in Mississippi, exit polls found). In most of the places where Obama needed to do better among whites to win, he did. "Some of this you have to look at regionally, because this is exaggerated in the Appalachian parts of the country and the South," Greenberg says. "The white numbers in the industrial Midwest and on the East and West Coast are different."
Indeed, analysis conducted for National Journal by Edison Research shows that Obama equaled or exceeded his national share of the vote among noncollege whites in 22 of the 31 states in which exit polls were conducted last year—and won each of them except Indiana. Likewise, he equaled or exceeded his national share of the vote among college-educated whites in 22 states, and won all of them except Montana. North Carolina was the only one of the nine battleground states that both sides actively contested in which Obama did not match or better his national showing among either noncollege whites (Ohio and Florida), whites with college degrees (Virginia), or both (New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada). Obama carried each of those states beyond North Carolina.
The Next Elections
Weighing all these factors, most political professionals in both parties who have expressed an opinion are somewhere between dubious and scornful of the notion that Republicans can rely almost entirely on further gains with whites to recapture the presidency without meaningfully improving among minorities. "This is an anti-mathematical position," says longtime Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. "Electoral reality is not the product of somebody's ideological wishes. It's arithmetic. And the arithmetic is working badly against the Republicans."
Similarly, Greenberg, who polled for Bill Clinton, says Obama faces unique problems among whites both because of his race and the gruelingly slow economic recovery. "Those things together make me think these white numbers [for Democrats] are not the new baseline -- that they are much more likely to go up than down," he says.
Veteran Republican pollster Whit Ayres is no less dismissive. "Any strategy that is predicated on [consistently] getting a higher percentage of the white vote than Ronald Reagan got in 1980 is a losing strategy," he says. "It's the same thing Democrats would talk about in the late 1980s after they had lost five of the previous six presidential elections in the popular vote. What they would say is, we need to get the nonvoters to vote; the nonvoters are with us. It never happened."
The whites-first argument, Ayres adds, "is not getting much penetration among people who are serious about winning presidential elections. It is getting traction among people who are trying to justify voting against immigration reform or making any of the other changes that are necessary to be nationally competitive in the 21st century."
Republican strategist Rich Beeson, the national field director for Romney's 2012 campaign, takes a more nuanced view. In theory, he says, the next GOP nominee might achieve enough white gains to win without improving among minorities. But as the minority population continues to increase, Beeson adds, "is it a recipe for long-term success? Absolutely not."
All four consultants, like others in both parties, agree that Republicans would face additional challenges expanding or even maintaining their white margins in 2016 if Democrats nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not only would her status as the first female major-party nominee give her an obvious calling card with white women, but during the 2008 nomination fight against Obama she also appealed effectively to some voters whom Obama has always struggled with. "Working-class whites connect with her and President Clinton in a way they don't with President Obama," says Garin, who served as the senior strategist in her 2008 campaign's final stages.
That doesn't mean Hillary Clinton would be a favorite to win most white women (no Democrat has since Bill Clinton in 1996), and she has almost no chance of carrying most working-class whites. But absent big GOP gains with minorities, she could win, even comfortably, just by maintaining Obama's showing with whites; Republicans would face the burden of pushing her below Obama's performance. Though it's very early, the first 2016 polling instead has generally shown her trimming Obama's deficit among whites both nationally and in key states. Ayres says that rather than hoping to increase their showing with whites, Republicans must prepare for "the likelihood that the Democratic nominee, particularly one who doesn't come from the far left wing of the party, will get [a] higher proportion of the white vote" than Obama did in 2012. "That means," Ayres adds, "Republicans have simply got to rethink the formula of how you get to 50-plus-1 percent."
Kristol, the GOP thinker, doesn't concede that Republicans are unlikely to expand their white margin against Clinton if she runs. "It's true that Republicans have not done much better [than in 2012], but if Romney-McCain becomes the high-water mark for the Republican Party with any group of voters, they are in trouble," he says. And while Kristol believes Republicans will alienate conservatives for little gain with Hispanics if they pass immigration reform, he says the party next time should intensify its pursuit of minority voters on other grounds. "I very much hope the Republican Party by 2016 will have a conservative reform agenda especially speaking to working- and middle-class Americans," he says. "I still think there's a problem [with Hispanics], but I don't think it's inevitable that you can never get above the 27 percent [Romney won with them] if immigration doesn't pass."
In some ways, the very existence of this debate encapsulates the GOP's challenge. It's unlikely that a party with more diversity in its coalition would be debating whether it could respond to those voters without sacrificing its principles. But even in a rapidly diversifying nation, Republicans remain almost entirely dependent on the votes of whites, who supplied Romney with nearly 90 percent of his total support and cast over 90 percent of the ballots in almost all of the party's 2012 presidential primaries. Nearly four-fifths of House Republicans represent districts that are more white than the national average. This means that minorities who might be drawn to the party by a different mix of policies, such as comprehensive immigration reform, have minimal influence in shaping the party's agenda now. For those seeking a more inclusive and diverse GOP coalition, the first hurdle is that the future doesn't have a seat at the table today.
Stephanie Czekalinski contributed.
SOURCE: The Atlantic
^^^^
They know this unfortunately the answer they've arrived at is: try to cut down on the number of minority (particularly Black, Latino, and young) voters through illegal shenanigans.
They know this unfortunately the answer they've arrived at is: try to cut down on the number of minority (particularly Black, Latino, and young) voters through illegal shenanigans.
source: Right Wing Watch
Jesse Lee Peterson: March On Washington Anniversary 'Looked Like A Ku Klux Klan Rally'
Conservative activist and Fox News contributor Jesse Lee Peterson is angry about the growing political clout of African Americans and women, and he believes President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jamie Fox and Oprah Winfrey used the official commemoration of 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom to spread anti-white racism and socialism. Never mind that the original March on Washington called for “a national minimum wage act” and “a massive federal program to train and place all unemployed workers” in jobs [PDF]: Peterson accused Obama of twisting the message of the original march by “call[ing] for a minimum wage increase” and pushing “socialist ideas.”
”[T]he 50th anniversary commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic march and speech looked like a Ku Klux Klan rally!”
Peterson writes in WorldNetDaily that speakers at the commemorative event “whine about the need for ‘justice’ for blacks while continuing to pervert the civil rights struggle by equating it to current efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, pass amnesty for illegal aliens and degrade the Second Amendment.”
“It was an outright attempt to rewrite history – and use King’s name to advance an anti-American political agenda,” Peterson said. “We now have a full-fledged racist, socialist president in the White House.”
He also attacked march organizers for supposedly excluding Republican speakers, even though Republican leaders were invited to speak but declined.
Jesse Lee Peterson: March On Washington Anniversary 'Looked Like A Ku Klux Klan Rally'
Conservative activist and Fox News contributor Jesse Lee Peterson is angry about the growing political clout of African Americans and women, and he believes President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jamie Fox and Oprah Winfrey used the official commemoration of 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom to spread anti-white racism and socialism. Never mind that the original March on Washington called for “a national minimum wage act” and “a massive federal program to train and place all unemployed workers” in jobs [PDF]: Peterson accused Obama of twisting the message of the original march by “call[ing] for a minimum wage increase” and pushing “socialist ideas.”
”[T]he 50th anniversary commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic march and speech looked like a Ku Klux Klan rally!”
Peterson writes in WorldNetDaily that speakers at the commemorative event “whine about the need for ‘justice’ for blacks while continuing to pervert the civil rights struggle by equating it to current efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, pass amnesty for illegal aliens and degrade the Second Amendment.”
“It was an outright attempt to rewrite history – and use King’s name to advance an anti-American political agenda,” Peterson said. “We now have a full-fledged racist, socialist president in the White House.”
He also attacked march organizers for supposedly excluding Republican speakers, even though Republican leaders were invited to speak but declined.
Most blacks have lost the moral authority to claim the mantle of civil rights because they refuse to stand for what is right.
As an example, the 50th anniversary commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic march and speech looked like a Ku Klux Klan rally!
Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Foxx and others whined about the need for “justice” for blacks while continuing to pervert the civil rights struggle by equating it to current efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, pass amnesty for illegal aliens and degrade the Second Amendment.
But these malcontents were simply the opening act for Barack Obama – or, as I refer to him, the “Fallen Messiah.”
In his address, Obama, flanked by members of the King family, shamelessly said, “We would dishonor the memory of Dr. King and other heroes to suggest that the work of this nation is complete …” He then attacked Republicans who want to preserve voter integrity at the polls. Obama said we have to fight back against those who want to “erect new barriers to the vote …”
Obama also cited how black unemployment has remained twice as high as white unemployment and that the gap in wealth between the races has grown. He left out that things are far worse since he’s become president! He called for a minimum wage increase and for higher taxes on the wealthy. It was clear that Obama’s address was not about acknowledging the great strides America has made. His speech was about using the platform to sew dissatisfaction and help usher in his socialist ideas.
There were no black or white Republican speakers. As if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could have been passed without the GOP! This was not a commemoration of the spirit of MLK’s march. It was an outright attempt to rewrite history – and use King’s name to advance an anti-American political agenda.
…
As a result of the absence and weakness of black men, blacks have allowed every ungodly thing to influence their communities. We literally see hell on earth in places like Detroit, Newark, Chicago and New Orleans.
The negative attitude most blacks hold is antithetical to the Christian message of love and forgiveness delivered by MLK. Yes, blacks have indeed lost the moral authority to claim the mantle of civil rights because they refuse to stand for what is right. The 90 percent of blacks who helped elect Obama have little in common with MLK.
We now have a full-fledged racist, socialist president in the White House. Obama is no different than Jeremiah Wright Jr., Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – he’s just more polished and better at hiding who he is.
Throughout American history, whites have played a significant role in helping blacks secure freedom and equality. We can no longer relinquish the civil rights mantle to liberal racist blacks. It’s time to take back our country and confront black racism head on, but it will take both whites and freethinking blacks, standing together once again, to get it done.
As an example, the 50th anniversary commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic march and speech looked like a Ku Klux Klan rally!
Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Foxx and others whined about the need for “justice” for blacks while continuing to pervert the civil rights struggle by equating it to current efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, pass amnesty for illegal aliens and degrade the Second Amendment.
But these malcontents were simply the opening act for Barack Obama – or, as I refer to him, the “Fallen Messiah.”
In his address, Obama, flanked by members of the King family, shamelessly said, “We would dishonor the memory of Dr. King and other heroes to suggest that the work of this nation is complete …” He then attacked Republicans who want to preserve voter integrity at the polls. Obama said we have to fight back against those who want to “erect new barriers to the vote …”
Obama also cited how black unemployment has remained twice as high as white unemployment and that the gap in wealth between the races has grown. He left out that things are far worse since he’s become president! He called for a minimum wage increase and for higher taxes on the wealthy. It was clear that Obama’s address was not about acknowledging the great strides America has made. His speech was about using the platform to sew dissatisfaction and help usher in his socialist ideas.
There were no black or white Republican speakers. As if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could have been passed without the GOP! This was not a commemoration of the spirit of MLK’s march. It was an outright attempt to rewrite history – and use King’s name to advance an anti-American political agenda.
…
As a result of the absence and weakness of black men, blacks have allowed every ungodly thing to influence their communities. We literally see hell on earth in places like Detroit, Newark, Chicago and New Orleans.
The negative attitude most blacks hold is antithetical to the Christian message of love and forgiveness delivered by MLK. Yes, blacks have indeed lost the moral authority to claim the mantle of civil rights because they refuse to stand for what is right. The 90 percent of blacks who helped elect Obama have little in common with MLK.
We now have a full-fledged racist, socialist president in the White House. Obama is no different than Jeremiah Wright Jr., Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – he’s just more polished and better at hiding who he is.
Throughout American history, whites have played a significant role in helping blacks secure freedom and equality. We can no longer relinquish the civil rights mantle to liberal racist blacks. It’s time to take back our country and confront black racism head on, but it will take both whites and freethinking blacks, standing together once again, to get it done.
Condoleezza Rice urges Republican party
to be more inclusive
By Reuters
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Saturday called on the Republican Party to become <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">more inclusive on issues like immigration</SPAN>.
“We have a responsibility to those who do not yet have the liberties and the rights that we enjoy,” Rice told a cheering crowd at the annual gathering of California Republicans in the San Francisco suburb of Burlingame. “We cannot abandon them … We were once them.”
She did not offer a specific policy idea.
The speech by Rice, who was secretary of state under President George W. Bush, was the highlight of the second day of the three-day convention, which has set out to rebuild the party in a state where Democrats control both houses of the legislature and every statewide elected office.
WHAT SOME MEAN BY "BEING MORE INCLUSIVE"
U.S. Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, who recently won a primary battle against a challenger from the populist Tea Party movement, also talked about broadening the Republican Party by joining in a fight with the Tea Party against Democrats and liberals.
“The opportunities that lie for Republicans are enormous this year with a team that will be together,” Sessions said. “It’s easier to get things done in a majority.”
Jim Brulte, California’s former and long-serving state senate leader who has been charged with reviving the party in the state, said in a statement he was aiming to push the party “outside of its comfort zone.”
In her speech, Rice echoed the convention theme of “rebuild, renew and reclaim.” Rice included individual freedom, private sector-led growth and equal access to quality education as key themes for Republicans to focus on in California and elsewhere.
Convention attendees said they were behind the idea of Republicans reaching out to groups that have traditionally felt alienated by the party, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">particularly Latino and Asian immigrants</SPAN>.
“I really think that this country is going to be turned around with conservatives and <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">new immigrants</SPAN>,” said Susan Mason, of Sacramento, a Tea Party Republican. “We’ve got to get to them first.”
SOURCE
________________________
Maybe I just missed it; but I didn't see a single reference to "black people" -- in the "Inclusion" conversation.
"The GOP will never get Black voters," is a truism.
"...they don't want us," is a truism.
And yet,
95% of black people: The GOP just want to put y'all back in chains. Black Republicans are just sellouts that want to put black people back in slavery and bring back Jim Crow while taking away your right to vote.
GOP: There is no way in hell the 95%-5% ratio is going to change, and we don't care about them anyway. Let's go after hispanics.
95% of black people: GOP is racist.
"...they don't want us," is a truism.
And yet,
is still a concern.
95% of black people: The GOP just want to put y'all back in chains. Black Republicans are just sellouts that want to put black people back in slavery and bring back Jim Crow while taking away your right to vote.
GOP: There is no way in hell the 95%-5% ratio is going to change, and we don't care about them anyway. Let's go after hispanics.
95% of black people: GOP is racist.
If you're referring to the part above the quote, then I don't think either are untrue. I've said them myself multiple times online and offline.
If you're talking about the part below the quote, then all of it is untrue. It's a dumb and simplistic way of looking at things. However, it's still the BGOL way.
Those "truisms" you noted,
"The GOP will never get Black voters," is a truism.
"...they don't want us," is a truism.
I don't think are true at all.
As I said in my OP, the GOP has given up but they do want Black voters, they just don't want to do any work to get us.
In local politics, Republicans do get Black voters whenever they choose to compete. George Bush actually increased his numbers from 2000 to 2004. Mike Huckabee had sizable Black support in Arkansas. Pat McCrory had a good number of Black voters in NC due to his being a harmless, feckless mayor of Charlotte.
But the outreach they say they need somehow gets lost in their rush to pass anti-voting laws (what did Condi have to say about that?).
Of course you're right. And I believe the comments above from Michael Steele and others are reflective of that sentiment. And the words of the party hacks post 2012 presidential election bear it out as well: "outreach" "inclusiveness" -- but their actions have been to the contrary i.e., voter suppression aimed at lessening the black vote for their party-opponent, instead of realistically trying to attract that vote to the GOP.
Similar threads
