Way to represent, GOP!!!

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

If Clinton met with the First Presidency, it was after he was already elected. He certainly wouldn't have done it while campaigning. He even went to Arizona to announce that he had signed the Grand Staircase a national monument.

[Tex]

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.

I made my statement with the data I had. Given that we have no numbers on LDS voting patterns (and you have offered to provide none), it seems pointless to talk about it.

And as Indy and Pad have both pointed out, it's a pretty bad analogy to begin with.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

Reagan's percentage of the black vote also decreased from 1980 to 1984, an election in which he absolutely demolished the man that 91% of blacks voted for. I'm no Michael Barone, so I can't comment on why the minor shifts in numbers from election to election over 30 years have happened. The point is made, though, that they vote with solidarity not seen in any other race, and practically any other demographic.

Breaking away from numbers for a while, let's keep in mind that Bush has elevated blacks to some of the highest offices in the land, including two secretaries of state in a row. The only black man on the Supreme Court was appointed by a Republican. Yet the NAACP types routinely lampoon these folks as "not really black." And they run campaign ads suggesting Bush has committed offenses against black folk commensurate with the chain-dragging death of James Byrd.

With such as their attitude, I'm happy to see the candidates turn a cold shoulder to such a nakedly partisan organization.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I made my statement with the data I had. Given that we have no numbers on LDS voting patterns (and you have offered to provide none), it seems pointless to talk about it.

Your statement isn't supportable with the data you had. It isn't my point you now feel it is pointless to talk about it. It is your statement.

And as Indy and Pad have both pointed out, it's a pretty bad analogy to begin with. And it isn't a bad analogy, it just doesn't help you.

How about just campaign stops in Utah in general then?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,685192955,00.html

Clinton also campaigned in Utah in 1992, despite the fact that he finished 3rd there and never had a chance to win.

Originally Posted by tex

Reagan's percentage of the black vote also decreased from 1980 to 1984, an election in which he absolutely demolished the man that 91% of blacks voted for. I'm no Michael Barone, so I can't comment on why the minor shifts in numbers from election to election over 30 years have happened. The point is made, though, that they vote with solidarity not seen in any other race, and practically any other demographic.

A bit of a revision from your earlier statements. Good to see you concede the issue.

Breaking away from numbers for a while, let's keep in mind that Bush has elevated blacks to some of the highest offices in the land, including two secretaries of state in a row. The only black man on the Supreme Court was appointed by a Republican.

I am not criticizing them for those efforts. I am criticizing them for what they have not done.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How about just campaign stops in Utah in general then?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,685192955,00.html

Clinton also campaigned in Utah in 1992, despite the fact that he finished 3rd there and never had a chance to win.

And as I said before, that was a colossal waste of time. Using that as a meaningful historical precedent is laughable.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Your statement isn't supportable with the data you had. It isn't my point you now feel it is pointless to talk about it. It is your statement.

I provided a link to backup my contention. Your inability to do the same is not my problem.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How about just campaign stops in Utah in general then?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,685192955,00.html

Clinton also campaigned in Utah in 1992, despite the fact that he finished 3rd there and never had a chance to win.

I don't know why Clinton chose to campaign in Utah, but the LDS church does not engage in politics (at a candidate/party level), thus rendering your comparison flawed.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

A bit of a revision from your earlier statements. Good to see you concede the issue.

I've not conceded anything. The exception is the political category, as I noted before. You really should learn to read whole paragraphs.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not criticizing them for those efforts. I am criticizing them for what they have not done.

That such efforts have been criticized underlies their reasons for not doing what you are criticizing them for.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

And as I said before, that was a colossal waste of time. Using that as a meaningful historical precedent is laughable.

It depends on what the purpose is. If it is solely to get votes, then you are right. If it is to send a message that the people you are visiting are important, then you are absolutely wrong.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I provided a link to backup my contention. Your inability to do the same is not my problem.



I don't know why Clinton chose to campaign in Utah, but the LDS church does not engage in politics (at a candidate/party level), thus rendering your comparison flawed.



I've not conceded anything. The exception is the political category, as I noted before. You really should learn to read whole paragraphs.



That such efforts have been criticized underlies their reasons for not doing what you are criticizing them for.

Your link didn't back up your contention. In fact, you admitted as such, then you made a new contention. It IS your problem that your data doesn't support your statement. I haven't made any such statements. If you can't support your statement, don't blame me for not supporting it for you.

If you haven't conceded anything, then I eagerly await proof that blacks vote more as a demographic than ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC, including, as you noted, religion, age and race. Good hunting.

I really enjoy your claim that the Republicans aren't doing more with blacks because they have been criticized. Classic. Who knew they were such a sensitive bunch? Isn't there a kids story about a sensitive elephant?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It depends on what the purpose is. If it is solely to get votes, then you are right. If it is to send a message that the people you are visiting are important, then you are absolutely wrong.

It probably had something to do with Rocky Anderson.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Your link didn't back up your contention. In fact, you admitted as such, then you made a new contention. It IS your problem that your data doesn't support your statement. I haven't made any such statements. If you can't support your statement, don't blame me for not supporting it for you.

If you haven't conceded anything, then I eagerly await proof that blacks vote more as a demographic than ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC, including, as you noted, religion, age and race. Good hunting.

Apparently you don't know how to read exit polls.

[Tex]

It's really too bad that CNN's exit polls don't track idiot California lawyers. I think they probably have a more uniform voting pattern than even blacks.