Judge Obama on performance alone - from the WSJ

fantASTic · #1 01-26-2009, 01:33 PM

PhiGam, remember as well that in the past, blacks tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate regardless of whom it is. This indicates that the Dems usually represent their interests as a whole (as much as you can lump any group together, that is) and so the support for Obama would have likely been almost as high regardless of his skin color.

KSig RC · #2 01-26-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantASTic

PhiGam, remember as well that in the past, blacks tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate regardless of whom it is. This indicates that the Dems usually represent their interests as a whole (as much as you can lump any group together, that is) and so the support for Obama would have likely been almost as high regardless of his skin color.

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

A 10% increase, if it really did go from 88% to 98%, is likely statistically significant given the immense population size.

DrPhil · #3 01-26-2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

Glad I read ahead. This is more accurate.

fantASTic · #4 01-26-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

A 10% increase, if it really did go from 88% to 98%, is likely statistically significant given the immense population size.

Gotcha. Thanks for the info

That is definitely more correct.

deepimpact2 · #5 01-26-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

A 10% increase, if it really did go from 88% to 98%, is likely statistically significant given the immense population size.

Well, compared to Republican support, it has been beneficial.

KSig RC · #6 01-26-2009, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Well, compared to Republican support, it has been beneficial.

I'd prefer to actually see the comparison performed before I assented to this.

deepimpact2 · #7 01-26-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'd prefer to actually see the comparison performed before I assented to this.

I hope you aren't serious.

AKA_Monet · #8 01-26-2009, 10:20 PM

To be honest, the man won the vote and he has been inaugurated. This is all water under the bridge. How can we all let it go and move on to solve some major issues occurring in this country, like jobs...

So what if some voted one way or another for whatever reason when they got into the voting booth? Who cares, really? If there was a major discrepancy, believe me, Obama would NOT be inaugurated as president... In fact, he has shown to support ethics more than anything else and to play by the book. Would McSame done the same thing? Would Billary?

So the reality is, the one who's holding the pen forms the opinions into laws...

Or the Golden Rule, the one with the gold, rules... Or there is no Justice, only just us... Or no Christ, no peace... Know Christ, know peace...

DrPhil · #9 01-26-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

To be honest, the man won the vote and he has been inaugurated. This is all water under the bridge. How can we all it go and move on to solve some major issues occurring in this country, like jobs...

So what if some voted one way or another for whatever reason that got them behind the voting booth? Who cares, really? If there was a major discrepancy, believe me, Obama would NOT be inaugurated as president... In fact, he has shown to support ethics more than anything else and play by the book. Would McSame done the same thing? Would Billary?

So the reality is, the one's who hold the pen's forms the opinions...

Or the Golden Rule, the one with the gold, rules... Or there is no Justice, only just us... Or no Christ, no peace... Know Christ, know peace...

Huh?

DrPhil · #10 01-26-2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I hope you aren't serious.

I hope he is.

There is nothing wrong with more objectively putting the Republican and Democratic parties side-by-side and seeing what has been accomplished that benefits blacks.

If more people did this, there would be much less party loyalty and much more politicians sweating to keep the votes of their constituencies.

deepimpact2 · #11 01-26-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I hope he is.

There is nothing wrong with more objectively putting the Republican and Democratic parties side-by-side and seeing what has been accomplished that benefits blacks.

If more people did this, there would be much less party loyalty and much more politicians sweating to keep the votes of their constituencies.

If you think this hasn't already been done over and over again, you clearly have been living with your head in the sand. I'm kind of puzzled that you actually suggest this as if it is a novel, ground-breaking idea.

Neither party is going to be EXACTLY what ANYONE wants...black, white, whatever. However, in picking the lesser of the two evils, most blacks feel that the Democratic party meets their needs much better.