The GOP gives the NAACP a hint about its priorities

snood wrote:

Can't a black man have a strong opinion, without being angry?

I seen that . . . i seen how you kicked that dog when you thought we all wasn't lookin' . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
Can't a black man have a strong opinion, without being angry?

I seen that . . . i seen how you kicked that dog when you thought we all wasn't lookin' . . .

Oh, a snitch, huh?! We cut snitches around here...

0 Replies

Snood, thanks for the photo, which I had not seen before. It is truly shocking that the Reps would essentially write off 12 percent of the population in that manner. I think this says that the Reps have no future. Frankly, I am amazed that they had a past. The photo should have been on the front page of every paper.

0 Replies

Phoenix, what you are ignoring in your otherwise well thought-out alibi for the GOP candidates is the fact that in most states voters can change party affiliation up to the last moment. (In. Mass. you can do it at the last second when you pick up your ballot at the polling place.) The pre-primary time, it seems to me, would be an ideal time for candidates to try and lure a sizeable portion of the constituency away from the other party.

0 Replies

It's all a question of cost vs. benefit.

If candidates had unlimited time, then there wouldn't be an excuse to miss this sort of thing - it would be a great idea to perform outreach, to give people who might not like you the idea that you're not really a horrible person yearning for the Confederate era or anything like that. But they don't have unlimited time - and because most people decide who to vote for on the basis of (gulp) TV advertising, a lot of that time must necessarily be spent in things that will make you money.

That leaves the candidate with a very limited amount of time to be used in an attempt to win the primary. It's way, way, wayyyyy too early for candidates to be thinking about positioning themselves for the general election run - if you do poorly in the first few primaries, there will be no general election for you. Therefore, it's imperative that you spend the resources you have on activities that make it more likely that you'll win those primaries, or at least do well enough that you can continue as a viable candidate.

Appearing in front of a crowd that's 90% composed of voters for the other party is not going to do this. To put it bluntly, there are virtually no other public fora in which a GOP candidate would be LESS likely to influence voters in his favor. This counts double considering that we're talking about the black constituency and one of the Democratic front-runners IS black. Just about the only place you'd find fewer potential Republican voters is at a gay pride rally, and you'll note that GOP candidates don't hit those either. ;p

The calculation was a little different for Tancredo, just because it gets his name in the news. Since he's well back in the pack, any exposure is good exposure, right? And he's not in a position where he's worried about shaving a few percentage points of the base from his rivals, but rather about securing a few points in the first place - when you have little to lose, you're more likely to gamble.

0 Replies

Avatar, thanks for he bloodless analysis. However, if ever a cost/benefit analysis was inapplicable, this is it. The blacks are a large and most important segment of our population, and can't be safely ignored. Doing so will forever alienate this group from the Reps. The Reps are disgusting.

0 Replies

Snood, do you think it had anything to do with a reaction to the democratic boycott of the Congressional Black Caucus debate in September on the grounds that it is being broadcast on Fox.

0 Replies

Hard to say. It would be easier to analyze had the Republicans ever shown any sustained interest in the concerns of the black community. Lacking that as a baseline, this just looks like business as usual for them.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Avatar, thanks for he bloodless analysis. However, if ever a cost/benefit analysis was inapplicable, this is it. The blacks are a large and most important segment of our population, and can't be safely ignored. Doing so will forever alienate this group from the Reps. The Reps are disgusting.

Which is ridiculous - it's not like the GOP makes a point of always attending NAACP events and this is some kind of unprecedented snub.

Look, it doesn't work both ways. If race doesn't matter and how you treat people should be considered separately from race, then you can't whine about nobody taking your racial interest group seriously. If race -does- matter and it's okay to treat people differently depending on what race you are... well, let's put it bluntly, the results would not be good for black people. You don't get to have both.

We're talking about a constituency that votes overwhelmingly Democratic and a philosophical divide on which the Republican candidates are on the other side. On top of that, the empty-podium stunt is pretty good proof that the NAACP wasn't acting in good faith to begin with - if you're the sort of organization that will belittle someone, you can't exactly bitch that the same person you just finished belittling decided you weren't worth talking to, now can you? Moral indignation is for those with clean hands, so to speak. ;p

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

you can't exactly bitch that the same person you just finished belittling decided you weren't worth talking to, now can you?

Then again, it seems as if the Republican candidates decided that this was the kind of audience that is not worth talking to, and subsequently that organisation "belittled" those candidates.... not the other way round.

0 Replies

a few more groups that the Republican candidates aren't interested in developing as an audience/voting pool (including a coupla surprises)

Quote:

In a press release from the Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean addresses the appearances, or the lack of appearances, by Republican Presidential Candidates before not only minority groups, but a couple of Republican Organizations as well. .

In his statement Chairman Dean accuses the Republican Candidates of refusing to talk to such groups as NAACP, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), the National Education Association (NEA), the Young Republicans National Convention, and even this week's College Republican Convention. Just one or two of the ten Republican candidates has accepted invitations to address these organizations and their members.

In Contrast, Mr. Dean states that all eight Democratic candidates have accepted invitations to address the NAACP convention, seven addressed the NALEO convention, and seven addressed the NEA.

<snip>

Quote:

Only one Republican candidate addressed the NAACP and that was Tom Tancredo. All of the Republican Candidates were invited to appear, but he was the only one to attend. All eight Democratic Presidential candidates accepted invitations to speak.

Only one Republican addressed NALEO and that was Rep. Duncan Hunter, of California. Seven Democratic Presidential Candidates attended a forum at the NALEO conference, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Joseph Biden of Delaware, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Only one Republican candidate addressed National Education Association, and that was Mike Huckabee.

Only one Republican candidate was scheduled to address College Republicans. The College Republicans will hold their 57th Biennial National Convention at the Sheraton in Arlington, VA this week. Senator Brownback is the only candidate slated to appear.

There was a slightly better turn out at the Young Republicans National Convention. Two if the Republican Candidates showed up, Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter. Rudy Giuliani declined to address the convention despite campaigning throughout Florida the same day.

link

source at democrats.org

so don't talk to folks who likely won't vote for you (because they aren't going to vote for you)
and don't talk to folks who might vote for you (I can see the argument on this being - well, they're going to vote Republican in any case)

Brilliant.

(thanks to Lash for the hook that led me to this)

0 Replies

Holy sh*t -

after reading lash's comment in the other thread, did you check google news for 'howard dean?'

'cause I did, and just found and read this same article.

Funny stuff

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

(found this article, and a couple of good bits on his impact on the 2006 elections and fund-raising for 2008 - saving them - hehehehehe)

0 Replies

The GOP gives the NAACP a hint about its priorities

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know