WHERE DID ROMNEY SCREW UP?

The incoherent posts produced by your mangled fingers are perfect examples of the humor of nonsense. Please don't get them fixed.

OK - That explains it.

But what does "pocket" mean?

If one party reliably puts more of an emphasis on civil rights and other issues that tend to matter to a specific demographic, why wouldn't they support that party? What's nefarious about that?

Nothing, if that's what it was all about.

Ask, Soz - he's dyin' to enlighten you.

A little late to the thread snood?

Perhaps you might offer something of substance other than a depressing wash of bitterness.

because finny has the depressing wash of bitterness angle fully covered.

with a side order of republican bile...

I cant, their still in a foreign land

Not late. I wanted Soz to ask you what "it's" about, since you say "it's" not about the black demographic being in the democrat's "pocket".

And you asking someone to be substantive is like a hog asking for haute cuisine.

...all seasoned with the stinging tartness of irrelevance, and rife with the pungent odor of the soon to be extinct.

Someone doesn't have a sense of humor. (I wonder why. )

And whose fault is that? The Republicans have attacked every other demographic except white fundamentalist, bible-bashing, gun-toting, government hating whackjobs.

And 58,805,060 voters went to the trouble of supporting them.

So, what else is it about, then?

Note, I'd agree that it's not solely about civil rights, but the other reasons I can think of are also not nefarious.

(Ah, I see snood predicted that follow-up, but yes the follow-up is kind of begged.)

Well that certainly made me look the fool.

I hope you know I was jesting darky as you were in implying my extinction.

I apologize if I offended you.

That just about sums it up.

Then they nominated a candidate who had swung very far to the right, in order to win the primaries, and who then spent the final weeks of the campaign frantically, and somewhat unsuccessfully, trying to move back toward the more moderate center again.

Now the Republicans can fight it out from within their ranks between those rigidly committed to extremist social/religious values, and an anti-government and uncompromising stance, and those who realize that the party must become more inclusive, more moderate, and more appealing to a wider demographic for its long-term viability. And they are significantly hampered by the lack of strong leadership in their party to help them resolve such differences as Congress confronts the fiscal cliff. John Boehner is between a rock and a hard place right now.

On a different note, I heard an interesting suggestion that Obama should appoint Romney to a position in his administration where his business experience could be profitably used. That's not a bad idea. In fact, some bi-partisan influence in the administration might help to tone down some of the partisan political rancor. I still remember being impressed that Kennedy selected a Republican as his Secretary of Defense. Finding the best people for the job really is more important than party affiliation.

The other possible reason is not nefarious in terms of the intent of the ddemographic, merely the party. The Democrats have worked very hard in establishing a permanent underclass who will rely on government for their welfare and reliably vote for Democrats. Unfortunately, due to a long history of institutional and societal oppression that drew them to the Party because of it's original alignment with the Civil Rights movement, black Americans are more likely to be ensnared in the web of dependency. The new focus is now on hispanics and particualry the ones who have entered the country illegally and also face economic hardship.

That is a complete load of bollocks Finn, and echoes Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe. As long as the Republicans trot out this insulting nonsense they're not going to widen their appeal.

This rubbish could apply to JK Rowling, a single mum living on benefits, and look at her now. You can see why she supports Labour though, the alternative is simply unconscionable.

That's kind of what I thought "in the pocket" might mean, yes. I'd still like to hear from Lash if that's what she meant, but thanks for clarifying your own opinion.

Your opinion here is very much in tune with the current Republicans, and THAT is very much part of why these demographics are being driven away.

"Democrats have worked very hard in establishing a permanent underclass" is, as Joe Biden would undoubtedly say, malarkey.

Democrats have worked harder than Republicans (in recent years anyway) to establish and/or maintain a safety net. That would indicate that the people who feel a need for a safety net -- and those who think a safety net is the more moral choice, whether they need it or not -- are more likely to vote for Democrats.

However, the whole narrative of "takers" and "47%" and reliance on government and all of that also actively drives away various demographics who do need the safety net -- even if only very temporarily.

That would include me, by the way, as someone who received SSI for about a year, between graduating with a bachelors degree (with honors) but unable to find a single job, explicitly because I was deaf (the ADA was new and not being widely enforced) (and the ADA itself falls in the same category of governmental help, of course, even though it was signed on the first President Bush's watch) and going back to get my master's degree.

After that, I was an extremely productive member of society, heading up an agency that dealt with the other "permanent underclass"-type people we're talking about -- who were deaf immigrants on SSDI who were wanted nothing more than to get off of SSDI and work, and who did, with the help of my agency. (Which was supported by governmental grants.) I had a 100% placement rate and employers were extremely happy with the people who came through the program.

Then I had my daughter and have been a 1950's housewife since (while also working from home). My husband has a good job and I now have no immediate need for governmental assistance -- but still believe in the morality of the safety net, and still vote Democratic.

Wasn't it under a Democratic President--Clinton--that efforts were made to move people off dependency on welfare by adding work requirements? The 1996 welfare reform law resulted in welfare rolls dropping by half, and the poverty rate for black children reached its lowest level in history in the years following.

Are you under the impression that most black voters are on welfare?

Do you think black Americans didn't support the Democratic party in the days of FDR--long before the civil rights movement?

That's not true. Most Latinos are in this country legally--and they bristle at the fact that "Hispanic" is now equated with "illegal alien". The majority are gainfully employed tax-payers, and they have traditionally been rather conservative voters.

The immigration issue is an separate problem--for both political parties to confront and deal with. But it's hardly the only problem or issue that concerns Latino voters. But the animosity that's displayed in the "take back our country" chant in the Republican ranks is hardly going to woo them to vote for Republican candidates.