Way to represent, GOP!!!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, we haven't. You never answered my question. Do you consider Mormons to be insignificant? Do you not consider them to be a religious demographic?

When you dodge an answer, you can't then say "we've been over this."

Mormons are not a large enough demographic group for CNN (or whoever did the exit polling for them) to include them as a separate category. Draw your own conclusions about what that means.

Unless you're disputing that blacks vote en masse for Democrats, then this is all really ancillary to the point anyway. It doesn't really matter to this discussion if they're #1 or #14 on the list of "monolithically voting demographics." The point is, it's the NAACP's own fault the GOP doesn't take them seriously.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mormons are not a large enough demographic group for CNN (or whoever did the exit polling for them) to include them as a separate category. Draw your own conclusions about what that means.

Unless you're disputing that blacks vote en masse for Democrats, then this is all really ancillary to the point anyway. It doesn't really matter to this discussion if they're #1 or #14 on the list of "monolithically voting demographics." The point is, it's the NAACP's own fault the GOP doesn't take them seriously.

Not a good argument. Jews are included, and they have about 1 million fewer members in the US. If you are arguing they are statistically significant, then you must concede that Mormons should also be viewed (along with Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians/Anglicans, etc.

I haven't ever disputed that blacks vote en masse for Democrats. What I have disputed is your nonsensical claim that they do more than "any other demographic" out there, including "religion, age and race."

I have also demonstrated that with Mormons, Democrats are willing to visit their leaders and the states where they are most concentrated. Republicans are not willing to do the same with blacks.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is also significant in California. You listed 3 states where it is significant. Out of 50. That is 6% of all states. If you include California, it is 8%.

What I said was, maybe "somewhat significant" in Arizona and Idaho. Hard to tell in Idaho because a lot of voters who are not mormon in Idaho have the same conservative tendencies.

Arizona was just a thrown in. Arizona voters vote contrary many times to what the popular notion of how a conservative LDS block would vote.

California, you have to be kidding me. The home of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and that great social issues republican Arnold S. Yea the mormon block is significant in California.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

What I said was, maybe "somewhat significant" in Arizona and Idaho. Hard to tell in Idaho because a lot of voters who are not mormon in Idaho have the same conservative tendencies.

Arizona was just a thrown in. Arizona voters vote contrary many times to what the popular notion of how a conservative LDS block would vote.

California, you have to be kidding me. The home of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and that great social issues republican Arnold S. Yea the mormon block is significant in California.

It is significant in California. You are confusing "significant" with "majority." If majority is what you mean, then we can eliminate almost every demographic except whites and blacks.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is significant in California. You are confusing "significant" with "majority." If majority is what you mean, then we can eliminate almost every demographic except whites and blacks.

Well, I don't want to debate this too much. I have heard pundits talk about the critical black vote or in the Pres. election the critical Jewish vote in Fla.

All I have heard them talk about the critical mormon vote is when they chuckle when someone says Utah voted republican. Haven't heard too many of them though discuss how something might affect the "critical" mormon vote.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Well, I don't want to debate this too much. I have heard pundits talk about the critical black vote or in the Pres. election the critical Jewish vote in Fla.

All I have heard them talk about the critical mormon vote is when they chuckle when someone says Utah voted republican. Haven't heard too many of them though discuss how something might affect the "critical" mormon vote.

But isn't that exactly the point here? Mormons aren't "critical" to Democrats because Democrats will lose their vote anyways. And yet, the Democratic candidates continue to visit Utah and its many Mormons.

Blacks aren't "critical" to Republican voting, and Republicans as a result see no reason to meet with the largest organization that represents their interests. That is kind of the point of the thread here.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

But isn't that exactly the point here? Mormons aren't "critical" to Democrats because Democrats will lose their vote anyways. And yet, the Democratic candidates continue to visit Utah and its many Mormons.

Blacks aren't "critical" to Republican voting, and Republicans as a result see no reason to meet with the largest organization that represents their interests. That is kind of the point of the thread here.

They don't come to Utah to meet with mormons. They come to meet with democrats. If they happen to be mormons too, so much the better.

I am sure the republicans will meet with black republican groups.

I will bet there are fewer republican blacks who belong to the NCAA than there are mormons who are democrats. On a percentage basis.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Not a good argument. Jews are included, and they have about 1 million fewer members in the US. If you are arguing they are statistically significant, then you must concede that Mormons should also be viewed (along with Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians/Anglicans, etc.

I'll pass along your complaint to CNN's exit polling service.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I haven't ever disputed that blacks vote en masse for Democrats. What I have disputed is your nonsensical claim that they do more than "any other demographic" out there, including "religion, age and race."

As I've already explained twice, only brain dead lawyers could assume I meant beyond "that which was surveyed." Nonetheless, I'm not surprised to find you focusing on something largely peripheral to the discussion. More amusing, you've provided no evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I have also demonstrated that with Mormons, Democrats are willing to visit their leaders and the states where they are most concentrated. Republicans are not willing to do the same with blacks.

And it has been explained to you why the analogy is poor.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'll pass along your complaint to CNN's exit polling service.



As I've already explained twice, only brain dead lawyers could assume I meant beyond "that which was surveyed." Nonetheless, I'm not surprised to find you focusing on something largely peripheral to the discussion. More amusing, you've provided no evidence to the contrary.



And it has been explained to you why the analogy is poor.

Only brain dead attorneys? Your quote came BEFORE you even provided a survey.

Here is a quick summary for your review:

Tex makes broad, absurd claim.
Cali asks for proof.
Tex provides a cite, then says it proves what he claims.
Cali points out the citation supports a proposition much narrower than what Tex claims.
Tex then argues that what he meant to say (and what any smart person would think he meant to say) is exactly what the citation says.

Hard to ever be wrong if your claims constantly evolve to mean exactly whatever any evidence you can provide says, even if the evidence you provide doesn't actually support your original claim.

Let me try one:

All internet links go to cougarguard.com.

http://cougarguard.com

Click on the link above for proof.

See- all internet links go to cougarguard.com (and if you can't understand that I mean that only the link above goes to cougarguard.com, then you are braindead).

And your explanation about my analogy is what is poor here (and all you really do is reference someone else's explanation, though oddly not Indy Coug's).

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

http://info.detnews.com/pix/photogal...es/index12.htm

When Tancredo is the candidate from your party who shows the most interest in minority rights, your party has a problem.

You got it all wrong. African Americans aren't the ethnic group Tancredo detests.