Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

these days.

[quote=“Tigerman”]The point of my post was clearly that the racism that could well defeat Obama in the coming election will not be Republican racism, but will instead be racism from white Democrats.

I could be wrong, but I predict that the racist element of the Democratic party will give this election to McCain. We’ll see.

IMO, it is a tight race only because a large (substantial) number of white Democrats are racist.

many white union members who normally would vote Democrat will not be able to bring themselves to vote for a black candidate, even if he is a Democrat.

We know for a fact, however, that the democratic party is scared shitless that white union members will refuse to vote for Obama because he is black.

Racist white Democrats are simply opposed to Obama’s blackness.[/quote]

My goodness, are you insulting the hardworking Reagan Democrats? Those proud, industrious people of Scots-Irish blood? They’re the true backbone of America, unlike you elite easterners, who scoff at their lack of urbane sophistication.

It’d probably be hard to find such stats.
usspecialinterestgroups.com/knig … -klan-kkkk

That makes them sound very Republican. (To me. Not to Tigerman.)
Resurgent Ku Klux Klan rallies in Tuscumbia

That makes them sound very Republican. [/quote]

How in the world does that make KKK nutters seem like Republicans?

Does the GOP advocate Christianity and seek to exclude or outlaw other religions?

Does the GOP advocate any crazy notion of keeping the races “pure”?

Does the GOP discriminate against non-whites?

That makes them sound very Republican. [/quote]

How in the world does that make KKK nutters seem like Republicans?

Does the GOP advocate Christianity and seek to exclude or outlaw other religions?

Does the GOP advocate any crazy notion of keeping the races “pure”?

Does the GOP discriminate against non-whites?[/quote]
Did I call it or what?

Wasn’t the McCain/Palin slogan, “99/100 percent pure”?

And when was that? Before 1965. Ancient history. That Democratic Party is dead, with most of the racists (Dixiecrats) having fled to the Republican side in the 1960s.

The Democratic Party before 1965 was a very different animal from what it has been during my lifetime.

So, who’re those white union guys that the Dems today are begging to vote for Obama? They ain’t Republicans.

The theocons sure do. That is, those known as the Christian Right. Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, etc.

The GOP Platform calls for the dismantling of church-state separation and the teaching of Judeo-Christian values in public schools.

Let’s see: caging lists, opposition to affirmative action, the Mexico border fence, …

And don’t get me started on how Republicans discriminate against gays.

So, who’re those white union guys that the Dems today are begging to vote for Obama? They ain’t Republicans.[/quote]

If they’re racists, I’d tell them to go ahead and vote Republican: The Democratic Party has no room for racists:

“Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in.” - 2008 Democratic Party Platform

The Republican party is not racist. But if a person was racist. (and I’m not saying anybody is) I believe they would prefer the Republicans.
A good Republican will complain about the influx of illegal immigrants, because he or she is interested in the affairs of US citizens above those from other countries. Whereas a racist person might be inclined to complain about the same thing because they don’t want more people with brown skin in the US.
A good Republican will say we need school choice and vouchers because it’s only fair for someone who sends their kids to a private school system to be exempt from paying for those that don’t. It’s like paying twice for their kids education after all. A racist person would be for school vouchers because they don’t want their kids to go to school with negroes and gangster rappers.

[quote=“alidarbac”][quote=“Tigerman”]The point of my post was clearly that the racism that could well defeat Obama in the coming election will not be Republican racism, but will instead be racism from white Democrats.

I could be wrong, but I predict that the racist element of the Democratic party will give this election to McCain. We’ll see.

IMO, it is a tight race only because a large (substantial) number of white Democrats are racist.

many white union members who normally would vote Democrat will not be able to bring themselves to vote for a black candidate, even if he is a Democrat.

We know for a fact, however, that the democratic party is scared shitless that white union members will refuse to vote for Obama because he is black.

Racist white Democrats are simply opposed to Obama’s blackness.[/quote]

My goodness, are you insulting the hardworking Reagan Democrats? Those proud, industrious people of Scots-Irish blood? They’re the true backbone of America, unlike you elite easterners, who scoff at their lack of urbane sophistication.[/quote]

Ever read Born Fighting: The Scots Irish in America? (a book by a Democratic Senator that is endorsing Obama by the way :laughing: ) If you read this book, you would see that they are, for the most part, inclusionist. In fact, there is a joke in the book about the Chinese and how even they would be assimilated by the Scots Irish. :laughing: What is important to them is patriotism. If they aren’t voting for Obama, it is because they don’t appreciate what Michelle or Rev. Wright said about the US. They also appreciate leadership from the ground up. That certainly doesn’t describe someone who followed the Daley machine on everything in Chicago and can’t feel comfortable around them (in contrast to McCain and Hillary) Most Scots Irish aren’t a big fan of unions either. The union people who won’t vote for Obama because of color are mostly the working class in the cities not the mountain folk. And yes, I agree with Tigerman, these people could prevent Obama from becoming president.

Yes, these people may vote Republican or even join the 'Pubs as a result of their racism, and it could cost Obama the election. Well, I say good riddance. The Dems don’t want those rotten apples.

Edited by request.

Which is more significant, in terms of actual numbers, the whites who won’t vote for a black, the blacks that would vote for any black, or the women who fall for the Rebublicans cynical Palin choice?

Highly doubtful. These folks will most likely stay Democrats and vote Democrat, so long as the Dem candidate isn’t a black man/woman.

And you are way wrong… the Dems want these racists… they are now begging these racists to vote for Obamessiah despite his blackness… and if these racist democrats don’t vote for Obamessiah the Dems will still court them in the next election.

As an aside, do you really believe that nonsense you posted about Dems and principle? Get serious. :unamused:

It will serve those racist guys right when President Palin busts up all their unions.

Good question… I don’t know.

Overall there are more whites than blacks… dunno what actual numbers are, though.

Not just Palin… how many women love HRC because she is a she?

But HRC was not a cynical choice of an unqualified candidate put on the ticket just to attract female votes. Palin clearly was.

A significant aspect is in the “Battleground” states - those states where the electoral votes are as yet ‘undecided’ and of sufficient volume to swing the election.
Mobilizing these areas is always key to any party victory. In these states, I’m not aware of the overall significance of the ‘Black’ vote being a factor in going to one party or the other. Although with a record of voting, historically, almost exclusively Demo, its fairly easy to ascertain their impact and status.
More and more the ‘Latino’ vote block is gaining importance; this is figuring into the mix in increasing relevance. As this group gains a larger place at the US table they are increasing swinging to the Rep party.

(note the abbreviation - Rep. - Not the churlish diminutive ‘pubs or pubes’)

But HRC was not a cynical choice of an unqualified candidate put on the ticket just to attract female votes. Palin clearly was.[/quote]

I believe McCain has already explained why he selected Palin as his running mate. He liked her “fighting spirit” against the party establishment.

I find it highly entertaining that you think she is unqualified. Do you know the difference between executive and legislative experience? :laughing: Palin has more executive experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. Obama had a little experience in community activism on rent subsidy issues before becoming a Daley yes man and Senator. Care to comment on Obama’s stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman?

Rep means representative, too, so 'pubs is a less ambiguous abbreviation, without any pejorative sense IMO, so I see no reason to stop using it. :idunno:

'Pubes was in response to the use of “Dims” a dozen or so times by Tigerman, but I have been asked not to use it in IP so I shan’t.