My prediction for Iowa

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

For liberals, agreed. The jury is still out with conservative elements.

You change positions faster than John Kerry windsurfing.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You change positions faster than John Kerry windsurfing.

What changed? Thanks in advance.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What changed? Thanks in advance.

You are simultaneously surprised and unsurprised at the "white vote for black guy" outcome.

Personally, I'm not surprised at all, because I think white racism--across all political ideologies--has ebbed into near oblivion. You can continue to hold your 1963 view of conservatism if you wish, but it'll just mean you're late to the table next time too.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You are simultaneously surprised and unsurprised at the "white vote for black guy" outcome.

Personally, I'm not surprised at all, because I think white racism--across all political ideologies--has ebbed into near oblivion. You can continue to hold your 1963 view of conservatism if you wish, but it'll just mean you're late to the table next time too.

No, not surprised that liberals voted for him. Pleasantly surprised that Midwestern independents supported him over all others, including conservative candidates. Not sure where the change was still.

My view of consertavism isn't based on 1963. Take a look at any Republican convention since then and show me how many African-Americans were there. Take a look at the way prominent conservative leaders have reacted to the African-American community, including recently with all Republican presidential candidates refusing to participate in debates sponsored by African-American interest groups.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

My view of consertavism isn't based on 1963. Take a look at any Republican convention since then and show me how many African-Americans were there. Take a look at the way prominent conservative leaders have reacted to the African-American community, including recently with all Republican presidential candidates refusing to participate in debates sponsored by African-American interest groups.

While you're taking all these looks, you might want to take a look at the outreach attempted by the GOP in 2000, and the subsequent 90%+ black voting margin for the Dems. You may also want to look at the treatment blacks gave other black GOP candidates, like Michael Steele. You may also want to look at how the liberal establishment treats blacks like Condi Rice and Colin Powell.

The black "community" has shot themselves in the foot with the GOP, every bit as much as vice versa. They've sold themselves wholesale to the Dems for a bill of goods ... some of their own "leaders" even say so (see Jesse Jackson).

Imagined racism is good for the Dems. It prevents otherwise clear-thinking black folks from giving the GOP an honest look. Meanwhile people like you are surprised to find folks not nearly as racist as you think they are.

Amusing.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

For liberals, agreed.

Perhaps not.

Barack Obama’s emphatic win in Iowa 10 days ago was widely portrayed as a historic moment in America’s political story. The fact that a black American could win in the overwhelmingly white state of Iowa was seen as a tipping point. But that may prove to be a premature – as well as historically glib – judgment of what took place.

...

This time round an unlikely racial tension is simmering within the Democratic camp. It is taking place against the backdrop of a Democratic primary in which up to half of voters will be African-American.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d84185f6-c...nclick_check=1

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, not surprised that liberals voted for him. Pleasantly surprised that Midwestern independents supported him over all others, including conservative candidates. Not sure where the change was still.

My view of consertavism isn't based on 1963. Take a look at any Republican convention since then and show me how many African-Americans were there. Take a look at the way prominent conservative leaders have reacted to the African-American community, including recently with all Republican presidential candidates refusing to participate in debates sponsored by African-American interest groups.

I don't know much about this or the rationale. Do you care to expound upon it?

However, in terms of resources the African American interest groups are beholden to the Democrats and the Republicans spend their resources on Latin groups and other demographics. When 90 percent of one group are voting against you, you don't stand much to gain, especially if you have other groups where the resources can yield results.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't know much about this or the rationale. Do you care to expound upon it?

However, in terms of resources the African American interest groups are beholden to the Democrats and the Republicans spend their resources on Latin groups and other demographics. When 90 percent of one group are voting against you, you don't stand much to gain, especially if you have other groups where the resources can yield results.

How would I expound on their reasoning? Ask them.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps not.



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d84185f6-c...nclick_check=1

Forgive me if I don't get too excited about an article from FT.com (where?) that I have to register to read.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How would I expound on their reasoning? Ask them.

What were the circumstances of the proposed sponsored debates?

Who made the decision?

When was the proposal made?

Did it conflict with other ones already agreed to?