The upcoming Republican Party convention

That is just sssooooo ridiculous.

Granted, in some social circles in this country, people will be surprised if you vote Democratic.

In other social circles, people will be surprised if you vote Republican.

However, what is the "punishment" for people who do this-vote for a different party than the rest of their social circle? Not much. A little ribbing. Maybe a few friendly political debates. That is it.

What is the situation with blacks in this country? For many years, after slavery-an institution that says it all as far as status goes-it was understood that you did not hire a black man if the white man wanted the job. In fact if you hired a black man for the same job whites worked as, whites would walk off the job-they wouldn't dream of allowing people to think they had equal working status with blacks. Whites would consider it a betrayal if you hired a black man to work with them, unless it was made clear that the white man was in some supervisory or superior position.

White people would consider it a betrayal of your neighbors if you sold your house to a black family, even in those cases where the black family somehow worked themselves into the position to afford the house.

In many parts of the country, blacks were not allowed to eat at the same counter as white people. A diner owner who wanted to be fair to black people and allowed them to do this would find himself losing his white customers, who would object to being forced into such a humiliating position.

Racism was understood to be the norm, and it was enforced by a whole code of ugly social and even violent actions.

And you and Ron Silver are going to seriously try to compare the black situation with the fact that in some social circles people are mildly surprised if you vote against what others vote for? Get a grip. There is NO comparison, and any sane person knows it.

0 Replies

http://images.usatoday.com/news/electmap.jpg

You know, in our presently often overheated political discourse-I think we can blame talk radio for much of that-we tend to forget that most places are not exclusively Republican or Democratic.

By now, we are all familiar with the Blue-Red map of the US, which shows blue for counties that went for Gore,and red for counties which went for Bush.

What we forget is that it only requires a majority to be one color or the other. That is, manyof those counties had proportions that were 51%-49%, 55%-45%, or even 60%-40%. (I am ignoring Nader here.)

Heck, even in a county that breaks down to 70%-30% for one or the other, that means that for every ten people you meet, 3 of them will be fo rthe "other" candidate.

These days, with all the political noise, I think a fair percentage of people-including you and Ron Silver-have yourself half convinced that if you leave a blue county and enter a red county, you leave a place where everybody voted for Gore and are entering a place where everybody voted for Bush. Not so. Democrats and Republicans, throughout most of the country, live next door to each other, work with each other, and in some cases live together and husband and wife.

People would do well to remember that.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Silver believes that there are quite a few high minded Democrats who publicly profess to loath the swaggering, inarticulate, and anti-intellectual Bush, because they think that is what is expected of them, but that once in the privacy of the voting booth, they will vote with their heart or their gut and pull the lever for Bush.

Well, the two a yuz are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but this isn't even anecdotal, it's conjecture.

Finn wrote:

For such Democrats, an admission of voting for Bush is similar to an admission of voting along racial lines.

No it isn't, and furthermore there's no good reasoning that indicates how you arrived at such a bizarre conclusion.

Seeing as how it began with a fantasy, I shan't be concerned.

0 Replies

Nice work, keltic.

Observe the dichotomy in my home state.

Houston currently polls 50-47 Kerry over Bush. It went for Gore by four points in 2000.

But Harris County (which collects many of the Houston suburbs, where the likes of Tom DeLay have been sent to Congress in years past) is red, as the map shows.

And the Rio Grande Valley (South Texas, predominantly Hispanic) is all blue.

Another fascinating observation (well, to me anyway) is all the blue counties along the banks of the Mississippi River.

What is it about proximity to the Big Muddy that made people vote Dem in 2000? :wink:

0 Replies

P. Diddie:

I think it is the proximity to water that makes a difference.

Cities traditionally have been built along waterways, and they still are. Water transportation leads to factories and facilities being built to be shipped by water, which leads for the need for workers to move in, which leads to diverse populations.

Diverse populations tend to vote Democratic.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

That is just sssooooo ridiculous.

Granted, in some social circles in this country, people will be surprised if you vote Democratic.

In other social circles, people will be surprised if you vote Republican.

However, what is the "punishment" for people who do this-vote for a different party than the rest of their social circle? Not much. A little ribbing. Maybe a few friendly political debates. That is it.

What is the situation with blacks in this country? For many years, after slavery-an institution that says it all as far as status goes-it was understood that you did not hire a black man if the white man wanted the job. In fact if you hired a black man for the same job whites worked as, whites would walk off the job-they wouldn't dream of allowing people to think they had equal working status with blacks. Whites would consider it a betrayal if you hired a black man to work with them, unless it was made clear that the white man was in some supervisory or superior position.

White people would consider it a betrayal of your neighbors if you sold your house to a black family, even in those cases where the black family somehow worked themselves into the position to afford the house.

In many parts of the country, blacks were not allowed to eat at the same counter as white people. A diner owner who wanted to be fair to black people and allowed them to do this would find himself losing his white customers, who would object to being forced into such a humiliating position.

Racism was understood to be the norm, and it was enforced by a whole code of ugly social and even violent actions.

And you and Ron Silver are going to seriously try to compare the black situation with the fact that in some social circles people are mildly surprised if you vote against what others vote for? Get a grip. There is NO comparison, and any sane person knows it.

First of all, I merely related what Silver said as an interesting observation. I stated no opinion as to whether or not I agreed with it.

Secondly, your attempt to frame Silver's comments in the politics of racisim is predictable but absurd.

His point is that just as many white people will respond favorably in a poll to a black candidate, but then turn around and vote for the white guy, he believes there are plenty of Democrats who are responding favorably, in polls, to Kerry, but will turn around and vote for Bush. It has nothing to do with the black experience, racism, or public confessions.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

First of all, I merely related what Silver said as an interesting observation. I stated no opinion as to whether or not I agreed with it.

Oh, please. You have already committed yourself to endorsing Sivler's analysis. Let's not be silly here.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Secondly, your attempt to frame Silver's comments in the politics of racisim is predictable but absurd.

Hey, you were the one who brought up black and white issues. Oh, excuse me-"analogies".

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

His point is that just as many white people will respond favorably in a poll to a black candidate, but then turn around and vote for the white guy, he believes there are plenty of Democrats who are responding favorably, in polls, to Kerry, but will turn around and vote for Bush. It has nothing to do with the black experience, racism, or public confessions.

Of course it does. Race has always been a big issue in America. For awhile, being too nice to blacks would bring down public disgust upon you. Now, you can be in trouble on the job or in your professional life if you make racist comments. Ask Rush Limbaugh-how is his televison sports broadcasting career coming along? Very Happy

My point that it takes something big like the race issue for people to depart in the voting booth from what they tell the pollsters. Because polling seems to work pretty well, in the hands of skilled practictioners. Zogby, for instance, has predicted both the victor and the presidential margin of victory within a percentage point three straight elections. You have to admit, that is damn good.

What Silver is saying, apparently with your tacit agreement, is that the repercussions of voting for Bush if you are from a social circle that generally votes Democratic are so strong, comparable to the repercussions of being thought a racist, that voters this year will adopt a policy of not telling the pollsters how they really intend to vote, which they normally do. Instead, Silver and you claim that people will tell pollsters the answer they think is "safe", while they vote the opposite on Election Day.

There is no evidence that people who vote for Bush when their social circle tends toward Kerry will suffer such repercussions.

Moreover, I would point out that Republicans, as I am sure you are aware, are willing to paint anyone who does not support Bush as being anti-American. This worked well for a couple of years, as Bush's lead was huge. So it seems to me that if you want to examine the situation, there are probably greater repercussions for telling Bush people that you intend to vote for Kerry than there are telling Kerry people that you intend to vote for Bush.

Democrats don't scream "anti-American" at people who vote Republican. However, as you saw yourself on Abuzz, plenty of Republicans scream that anybody who votes against Bush is "anti-American".

It looks to me that Silver and yourself are bringing up something that is likely to work in Kerry's favor, not Bush's.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

This is brilliant! I owe you for this one. Very cool. Fascinating, much more so than the state-by-state map. (Mind you, the blue county borders probly make the country look more Dem than it is, if you look thru your eyelashes :wink: )

Plus, you use it to make a very good point, one I was in fact just thinking of yesterday - but I wasnt near a computer, and later in the evening I was too lazy to type it all out. But what I'd wanted to say was pretty much what you wrote just now, just less eloquently.

I'd been provoked by a Republican Convention delegate in an interview saying something about how the Democrats thought "all of us in the flyover states are stupid". But in the overwhelming majority of places around America, neither party actually gets more than 60%. That means that almost everywhere, in fact, pretty much something close to half the people (4 out of 10, 5 out of 10, 6 out of 10) votes for either party. That sure puts all the hyped-up red state/blue state culture-divide in perspective. To the extent there is a culture divide, it cuts at least as much through the parties rather than between them - Iowa Democrats being very different from Vermont Democrats, and New Jersey Republicans being very different from Alabama ones.

Plus, your post about why riverside areas often tend leftwards. That makes sense - and that one's neat, too, cause I've actually been pondering that several times the past year. Once when I saw the electoral map of Wisconsin, with the Mississippi shores (and the lake shore in the northwest) going strongly Dem, and read a report about how the same goes for the nearby areas in neighbouring states, Iowa, Illinois - well, you can see it in your map.

The other time was when I was looking at a Dutch electoral map, and noticed that all along the shores of the Ijssel and the Lek or Waal, districts were noticeably more often 'red' than in places further inland - and that that went for both cities and rural areas. I couldn't place why that would be so, but your explanation makes sense. Theres traditionally been lots of brick factories along the Lek, for example, in small towns and villages too - which is logical because of the transport means and the clay - and that means industrial workers must have moved in - partly from all over the place. All contrasts sharply with traditionally agricultural communities of homogenous origin.

Yep. Makes sense. Cute!

0 Replies

About the Zogby vs Time and Newsweek flap. (Heh.)

Zogby, to recap, had a 2-point Bush lead. Time and Newsweek both an 11-point lead.

Today, a third pollster argues in an elaborate analysis why Time and Newsweek most probably are off the mark, and that the actual Bush lead is closer to 4-5 points.

Unfortunately for you (or let's just say: ironically) ... it's Rasmussen. Heh. (For the uninitiated, Keltic has been asserting insistently that Rasmussen's numbers are worthless and should never be taken into account.)

Also today, however, Gallup/CNN/USAToday came out with a poll that has Bush in the lead by 7 points - which is more along the Time/Newsweek lines again.

Seems like stuff is in flux ... (I'll post the details on my bookie thread, if someone else didnt already).

0 Replies

a cnn poll this morning showed the below regarding bush's bounce;

it will hold - 36%

it will fall - 64%

0 Replies

LOL - seriously? They polled people about what they thought about their poll?

How very meta ... ;-)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

LOL - seriously? They polled people about what they thought about their poll?
How very meta ... ;-)

guess so.

this is one of the many reasons that i believe the reps are laughing and rubbing their hands together too quickly.

in a few days or whatever, most people are going to wake up and realize that when the happy bender of last weekend wears off, they still have the same problems.

it's still a horse race. and i'm rooting for seabiscuit.

0 Replies

In our present statistics laden society, it is only natural that they are hitting us with the "the candidate who is ahead on Labor Day wins" bit.

There are two things wrong with this.

First, there are a limited number of elections. Even if the tradition goes back 100 years, and I don't think it goes back nearly that far, that is only 25 elections. Not so extraordinary for a first time.

Sportscaster do the same thing in playoffs. The baseball playoffs as we know them are only about 25 years old. So there are a lot of things that are going to happen in the playoffs that have not happened yet. Yet, the sportscasters, like newscasters, are always looking for the historical angle, so they can give the audience a thrill that something BIG is happening. "In the history of the playoffs no team has ever come back from a 3 games to 1 deficit to win the series", etc, etc, blah blah blah. Until someone does it of course, then the next time it's "Only once in the history of the playoffs has a team come back from three games to 1 to win, etc etc.

The second thing is I have never, ever seen a convention scheduled as late as the Republican one. Usually, one convention is in July, the other is in early to mid August, and that is that. I have never seen a convention end anywhere near September.

Of course Bush is going to have decent numbers on Labor Day-he just finished his convention! THAT has never happened before.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I dont really think the LC Reps will be withholding their endorsement after the Convention - probably more like an exerting pressure thing. But the observation on the current state of affairs with the Party, as made bold above, should give some pause ... Basically, when he talks of the "radical right's" hold on the party, he is including the party platform that was, I understand, adopted today ...

They did it!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=4&u=/nm/20040908/ts_nm/campaign_bush_logcabin_dc_5

0 Replies

Quote:

The document you requested is not found. It may have expired

?

0 Replies

Hmm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/campaign/08repubs.html

0 Replies

Ahh, found it on another page. At least I think it's what you were linking to.

Quote:

GOP Group Withholds Endorsement of Bush

2 hours, 23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Republican Party's largest gay and lesbian organization, which endorsed President Bush (news - web sites) in 2000, is withholding its endorsement of the president for re-election because of his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The national board of Log Cabin Republicans (news - web sites) voted 22-2 Tuesday night to hold back the endorsement and called Bush "disloyal" to the 1 million gay men and lesbian women who it said supported his candidacy four years ago.

"It is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the president's support for an antifamily constitutional amendment. This amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships," Log Cabin political director Chris Barron said.

link ?

0 Replies

can't poke people in the eye and expect them to look at you. a big tent, indeed. hah!

0 Replies

So who will they endorse, Nader?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So who will they endorse, Nader?

kerry. he isn't perfect but he's against the amendment. better chance of getting what they want from him than the bush league.

0 Replies

The upcoming Republican Party convention

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know