Way to represent, GOP!!!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You need to read your own statements again.

"The GOP, for it's part, can do a better job of outreach as well, but I don't consider the NAACP part of that."
"I did say, in case you didn't notice, that the GOP has to do a better job of outreach."

Or, you could try graduating to reading whole paragraphs.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

"The GOP, for it's part, can do a better job of outreach as well, but I don't consider the NAACP part of that."
"I did say, in case you didn't notice, that the GOP has to do a better job of outreach."

Or, you could try graduating to reading whole paragraphs.

I would love to hear how those statements make any sense at all in juxtaposition with your statement of "But ultimately political parties respond to constituencies and not the other way around."

Let me guess- if you take every position possible in a debate, then you can't ever be shown to have been wrong...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I would love to hear how those statements make any sense at all in juxtaposition with your statement of "But ultimately political parties respond to constituencies and not the other way around."

Let me guess- if you take every position possible in a debate, then you can't ever be shown to have been wrong...

Political parties are made of people with passions for particular issues and have joined together to further those passions. The GOP needs to make clear that issues that are important to blacks are welcome under the tent, but ultimately it is up to blacks to choose to do so. Too many of them have already made up their mind when they first see the word "Republican." No amount of outreach will bring such people across the line.

Ironically, their intransigence hurts them with Democrats as well, who take their vote for granted. No other demographic ... not religion, race, gender, or age ... approached the monolithic vote of the black "community" in 2000. A party who can so easily depend on such blind loyalty has no reason to seriously court such a constituency.

For your benefit, in one sentence: there is a responsibility and obligation each has toward the other, but in this case, the larger burden lies with the black "community."

[BlueHair]

Why go to a minorty event? It takes a majority to win an election.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Political parties are made of people with passions for particular issues and have joined together to further those passions. The GOP needs to make clear that issues that are important to blacks are welcome under the tent, but ultimately it is up to blacks to choose to do so. Too many of them have already made up their mind when they first see the word "Republican." No amount of outreach will bring such people across the line.

Ironically, their intransigence hurts them with Democrats as well, who take their vote for granted. No other demographic ... not religion, race, gender, or age ... approached the monolithic vote of the black "community" in 2000. A party who can so easily depend on such blind loyalty has no reason to seriously court such a constituency.

No other contingency? Like Mormons?

Give me a citation.

You are making a chicken-egg argument here that is circular. Did 91% of blacks in 2000 vote for Gore because they are ignored by Republicans, or did Republicans ignore them because they knew 91% would vote Democratic? What evidence do you have that it was the former and not the latter?

You still haven't bothered to explain how you can, on the one hand, claim that parties only respond to constituencies and not the other way around, while simultaneously arguing that they both respond to each other.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Why go to a minorty event? It takes a majority to win an election.

Hah. That made me laugh out loud.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Give me a citation.

The results I cited come from CNN's exit polling (links below). Interestingly enough Bush's 2000 black vote exactly mirrored Reagan's 1984 black vote.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No other contingency? Like Mormons?

I think you mean "constituency" although "demographic" is a better word. Mormons were not included as a separate category in the exit poll results.

As you can see, until you get to political questions, no demographic is more politically monolithic. The only one that gets close are Jews who voted 80/17 for Gore.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are making a chicken-egg argument here that is circular. Did 91% of blacks in 2000 vote for Gore because they are ignored by Republicans, or did Republicans ignore them because they knew 91% would vote Democratic? What evidence do you have that it was the former and not the latter?

You still haven't bothered to explain how you can, on the one hand, claim that parties only respond to constituencies and not the other way around, while simultaneously arguing that they both respond to each other.

I suppose both sides have legitimate gripes about the other, and some that are not so legitimate. However, if memory serves, one of the (many) stories to come out of the 2000 election was how badly Bush did with blacks despite a concerted effort to court black votes. A second attempt in 2004 yielded 11% of the black vote, which was considered a stunning improvement by some.

The GOP will continue to try (and it should) because there are people who care about courting black votes in the party. But until blacks as a "community" decide that not only one party can meet their interests, there is little the GOP can do to change their voting patterns.

To bring this discussion back to the original topic, GOP candidates might as well appear at a Democrat fundraiser as speak to the NAACP. When the face of black America is Kweisi Mfume, Julian Bond, Harry Belafonte, and the kingpins of race-baiting politics, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson .... when large percentage of blacks believe that the GOP blew up the levies to kill more black people .... there is nothing to be accomplished by making an appearance in front of a hostile organization.

1984 exit polling
2000 exit polling

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The results I cited come from CNN's exit polling (links below). Interestingly enough Bush's 2000 black vote exactly mirrored Reagan's 1984 black vote.



I think you mean "constituency" although "demographic" is a better word. Mormons were not included as a separate category in the exit poll results.

As you can see, until you get to political questions, no demographic is more political monolithic. The only one that gets close are Jews who voted 80/17 for Gore.



I suppose both sides have legitimate gripes about the other, and some that are not so legitimate. However, if memory serves, one of the (many) stories to come out of the 2000 election was how badly Bush did with blacks despite a concerted effort to court black votes. A second attempt in 2004 yielded 11% of the black vote, which was considered a stunning improvement by some.

The GOP will continue to try (and it should) because there are people who care about courting black votes in the party. But until blacks as a "community" decide that not only one party can meet their interests, there is little the GOP can do to change their voting patterns.

To bring this discussion back to the original topic, GOP candidates might as well appear at a Democrat fundraiser as speak to the NAACP. When the face of black America is Kweisi Mfume, Julian Bond, Harry Belafonte, and the kingpins of race-baiting politics, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson .... when large percentage of blacks believe that the GOP blew up the levies to kill more black people .... there is nothing to be accomplished by making an appearance in front of a hostile organization.

1984 exit polling
2000 exit polling

I will take a look at your exit polls, though it is amusing that you have already admitted they don't say what you claim they say. You claimed that "No other demographic ... not religion, race, gender, or age ... approached the monolithic vote of the black "community" in 2000." I bring up one obvious religious body, and you can't say whether they were more "monolithic" or not.

Even as "monolithic" as the LDS voting bloc is, can you imagine a Democratic president refusing to meet with LDS leaders? Clinton met with Hinckley and other members of the First Presidency multiple times, and he came in third in Utah.

Dole got 14% of the black vote in 1996, and he was running against "America's First Black President." Bush lost 3% of that vote just 4 years later. Could it be that Republicans are doing more to alienate black voters than you want to admit? If you want things to change, defending your party's actions in avoiding the NAACP is not a good start.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are just making things worse for yourself. You are now implying that blacks in the NAACP are bigoted.

Is there any group in the world, or any person for that matter, that doesn't want what is best for them? Couldn't you compare everything and anything based on your weak criteria?

I am not implying that that at all - you are taking it that way because you choose to take it that way. I'm making very broad statements. You showed you understand that with your second paragraph.

You've yet to convince me that the NAACP is not about ideals.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I will take a look at your exit polls, though it is amusing that you have already admitted they don't say what you claim they say. You claimed that "No other demographic ... not religion, race, gender, or age ... approached the monolithic vote of the black "community" in 2000." I bring up one obvious religious body, and you can't say whether they were more "monolithic" or not.

Even as "monolithic" as the LDS voting bloc is, can you imagine a Democratic president refusing to meet with LDS leaders? Clinton met with Hinckley and other members of the First Presidency multiple times, and he came in third in Utah.

Dole got 14% of the black vote in 1996, and he was running against "America's First Black President." Bush lost 3% of that vote just 4 years later. Could it be that Republicans are doing more to alienate black voters than you want to admit? If you want things to change, defending your party's actions in avoiding the NAACP is not a good start.

While the LDS membership might indirectly constitute a Republican voting block, it's certainly not at the behest of the LDS leadership. That's a poor example.

If Clinton used that meeting as a ploy to get votes (which I doubt), it was a colossal waste of his time.

The NAACP is not an organization to be taken seriously if you're really interested in courting the black vote, IMO.