0
   

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 09:35 am
Lash, not sure where you got your figures, but nimh just said in the "bookie" thread that blacks were polling at 90% for Kerry -- if all of the remainder were for Bush, that'd be 10%, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some third party candidates in there. All in all, doesn't seem much different from 2000.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:24 pm
sozobe wrote:
Lash, not sure where you got your figures, but nimh just said in the "bookie" thread that blacks were polling at 90% for Kerry -- if all of the remainder were for Bush, that'd be 10%, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some third party candidates in there. All in all, doesn't seem much different from 2000.

The polls differ, apparently.

Today's Reuters/Zogby tracking poll says Kerry's getting 90% of the black vote.

Today's WaPo tracking poll says Kerry's getting 92% of the black vote - and Bush just 7%.

But I did see the reference to a poll that had Bush support among blacks up at 18% as well. I don't know what poll it was, but I saw it mentioned.

Haven't seen any other demographics-by-race recently.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 05:35 pm
Quote:
The Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies, a leading think tank on issues affecting African-Americans, released a poll Tuesday that found 18% of black Americans would vote for President Bush. That's twice the share of black votes Bush drew in 2000, though far lower than Kerry's 69%.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-19-kerry-black-vote_x.htm
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 06:13 pm
Thanks, Fox. I'm a bit biased, but I wouldn't throw out a made up stat--or even take one "percieved biased" stat as factual.

I found it on MSNBC and two other articles... But, again, we'll see. I just wonder how the 18% flared up, and is so quickly disappeared...

One article that interested me was the Dem loss in the biggest demographic--women--and ANY movement in the black vote floored me. But, I have been reading articles in which blacks expressed anger toward their party's stand on Gay Marriage. A whopping 67% of NAACP members were flatly against the Dem stand on Gay Marriage. You can't expect them to continue in a party that is opposed to many of their religious views. I guess you could expect some of them to jump ship over it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 07:25 pm
Many black Americans indeed oppose gay marriage and these same people highly resent the left using them as the 'separate but equal' analogy to defend gay marriage.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 02:20 am
Thanks Fox!

Lash, I dont think the the 18% "so quickly disappeared" - you'd have to check two subsequent polls by the same pollster, in this case the Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies, to see if there was an up or down over time. All we can say now is that it came up in one pollster's numbers, while it didn't show up in other pollsters'.

On the one hand, the Center's poll is more credible, because its based on a poll of 850 African-Americans, whereas the Reuters and WaPo numbers on race depend on subsamples of their overall sample of probably some 1,000 - so, for example, perhaps 100 blacks in all.

On the other hand, if one poll is off from the average and shows up numbers that none of the other polls show, that's always ground for healthy distrust - it indicates a likely outlier. I haven't seen any other polls that have black support for Bush that high.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 07:39 am
Yeah.

Btw for the record I didn't think you made it up -- my point was that the one poll evidently didn't reflect current reality so was of limited use in the point you were making.

But yeah, who knows what "current reality" is? (Not to get existentialist on ya...)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Many black Americans indeed oppose gay marriage and these same people highly resent the left using them as the 'separate but equal' analogy to defend gay marriage.

Sure, and many white women, who had gained the equal citizenship status implicit in the right to vote were resentful of this same equality principle being extended to blacks.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:12 pm
Nope. Women did not have parity with men before some changes were made, and now they do except for a few remaining glass ceilings that are becoming thinner and thinner, year by year.

Blacks did not have parity with whites before anti-discrimination laws and the initial wave of affirmative action. Now they do and the very few remaining pockets of racism are being exposed and eradicated, year by year.

Gays already have the exact same rights as all Americans regarding the issue of marriage. That's the difference.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:21 pm
Sort of like when interracial marriages were banned, everyone had the same rights, that is the right to marry someone of the same race. (and opposite sex)

You do not consider that law racist in the slightest?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:29 pm
Yes that was racist. But comparing race and gender are comparing apples and oranges.
People of ALL races, ethnic or socio-economic groups are included in the current marriage laws. the distinction of the laws are based on gender and being of legal age and on no other criteria. And there is no discrimination between men and women in this case as the law applies equally to each.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:33 pm
I don't recall this wrench being tossed in there yet :smile: Where does polygamy fit in? Will they be the next to demand their rights? Should they get them?
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:33 pm
Both apples and oranges are fruits.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:36 pm
And fruits are often mixed with a lot of nuts.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:38 pm
you guys are on a ROLL
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:42 pm
I still think the comparison is valid. (Don't quite get the nut statement)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:56 pm
panzade wrote:
you guys are on a ROLL
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:57 pm
Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 12:58 pm
I think so too, Einherjar. I think it pretty much condenses the one argument the opponents of gay marriage have not been able to rebut, in just the one sentence.

Foxfyre wrote:
Yes that was racist. But comparing race and gender are comparing apples and oranges.
People of ALL races, ethnic or socio-economic groups are included in the current marriage laws. the distinction of the laws are based on gender and being of legal age and on no other criteria. And there is no discrimination between men and women in this case as the law applies equally to each.

Of course there is no discrimination between men and women - noone ever asserted there was. There's a discrimination between straight people and gay people. (If this sounds like a 'duh' moment it's because it is.)

A law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation may be perfectly non-discriminatory on any other count - because those counts are not the ones it targets. That doesn't make it any better. Compare: the ban on interracial marriage was exemplary in the ways it did not discriminate between men and women, or between people of different socio-economic backgrounds, or between people of different sexual orientations. None of them were allowed to marry someone of another race - all of them were allowed to marry someone of their own race. That didn't make it any better, or any less discriminatory.

In fact, this is where Einherjars point kicks in. Your reply to his parallel is no reply. First, you assert that discriminating on the basis of sexuality (which is what a ban on gay marriage is - straight people can marry their partner, gays can't) is simply different from doing so on the basis of race - it's "apples and oranges". But you do not argue why the one thing should be so essentially different from the other, or what the justification for the difference would be.

You say that the current ban on gay marriage is not discriminatory because it applies to all "races, ethnic or socio-economic groups". But of course, with that kind of logic one could equally argue that the old ban on interracial marriage was non-discriminatory because it applied to people "of all sexual orientations, ethnic or socio-economic backgrounds". Again, the "duh" moment - the discrimination, of course, concerned the count the law set out to discriminate on. Back then, race. Now, sexual orientation. You fail to argue why one thing is OK when the other obviously wasn't.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 01:00 pm
Ah, so it was an ad hominem.

Care to embelish on why the ban on interracial marriage was discriminating, while a ban on same sex marriage isn't?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 11:51:06