Can a White, Male (D) ever win again?

[CHFG8R]

I was thinking about this over the weekend and wanted to put it to the board. Is there a white, male (D) that could win the Presidency in 2016. . . and in the future.

IMO, the reelection campaign for Obama was very similar to GWB's reelection campaign in 2004. Whereas GWB prevailed on a "vote for me or you're a traitor (and hate the troops)" campaign, it seems Obama has prevailed on a similarly shallow principal: "Vote for me or you're a racist/eliteist/1%er."

That said, without the minority angle (and considering changing demographics in the USA), can the (D)s win without a minority/female candidate? Based on what I currently see in the party, I think the answer is actually "No." Not saying a Clinton or Kennedy isn't out there, but I see nothing on the immediate horizon.

2016 is going to be interesting in that respect. Hillary has too many negatives and will be too old (don't even know what her health will be like then). Biden. . . yeah right. Who eles is out there? I'm thinking they are going to fast-track Brewer, though mayor to President is a bit of a reach.

[PSGator66]

Maybe not in the next race but to answer your question - yes.

[108]

"Vote for me or you're a racist/eliteist/1%er."

I really don't think many people vote out of guilt

But to answer your question, YES

[MichiGator2002]

So you don't put any stock in the liberal LA Times columnist's theory that Obama was the "magic Negro"? Think that has its own entry on TVTropes, which may be where the columnist got it from.

[wgbgator]

I was thinking about this over the weekend and wanted to put it to the board. Is there a white, male (D) that could win the Presidency in 2016. . . and in the future.

IMO, the reelection campaign for Obama was very similar to GWB's reelection campaign in 2004. Whereas GWB prevailed on a "vote for me or you're a traitor (and hate the troops)" campaign, it seems Obama has prevailed on a similarly shallow principal: "Vote for me or you're a racist/eliteist/1%er."

That said, without the minority angle (and considering changing demographics in the USA), can the (D)s win without a minority/female candidate? Based on what I currently see in the party, I think the answer is actually "No." Not saying a Clinton or Kennedy isn't out there, but I see nothing on the immediate horizon.

2016 is going to be interesting in that respect. Hillary has too many negatives and will be too old (don't even know what her health will be like then). Biden. . . yeah right. Who eles is out there? I'm thinking they are going to fast-track Brewer, though mayor to President is a bit of a reach.

Corey Brewer for president! :laugh:

[gator996]

I was thinking about this over the weekend and wanted to put it to the board. Is there a white, male (D) that could win the Presidency in 2016. . . and in the future.

IMO, the reelection campaign for Obama was very similar to GWB's reelection campaign in 2004. Whereas GWB prevailed on a "vote for me or you're a traitor (and hate the troops)" campaign, it seems Obama has prevailed on a similarly shallow principal: "Vote for me or you're a racist/eliteist/1%er."

That said, without the minority angle (and considering changing demographics in the USA), can the (D)s win without a minority/female candidate? Based on what I currently see in the party, I think the answer is actually "No." Not saying a Clinton or Kennedy isn't out there, but I see nothing on the immediate horizon.

2016 is going to be interesting in that respect. Hillary has too many negatives and will be too old (don't even know what her health will be like then). Biden. . . yeah right. Who eles is out there? I'm thinking they are going to fast-track Brewer, though mayor to President is a bit of a reach.

Warner
Biden (2x)
O'Malley
Cuomo
Feingold
Vilsack
Schweitzer


There are quite a few legitimate white males on that list IMHO for the next election.

[CHFG8R]

I really don't think many people vote out of guilt

But to answer your question, YES

Okay, WHO? Hell, throw me a name for 2020 just for chits and giggles.


And you don't think people vote (or don't vote) out of guilt? How do you explain 2004. Okay, Kerry was a horrible candidate, but you have to admit the "vote for me or you're a traitor" angle played a large role in that campaign.

[CHFG8R]

Warner
Biden (2x)
O'Malley
Cuomo
Feingold
Vilsack
Schweitzer


There are quite a few legitimate white males on that list IMHO for the next election.

Warner, maybe (Clinton strategy - (D) from Southern State). The rest. No chance whatsoever.

Did you really put Biden on that list? Dude has yet to finish as a runner up in a freakin primary and against duds like Kerry and Gore. What on earth would make you think he has a chance in hell of winning the Presidency, let alone the (D) nomination?

[tegator80]

My take is that after this past election, we have two choices: the American public can begin to pay attention to what is happening and then decide to vote in an informed way or we are a nation of sheep and if you want to get elected you need to get their attention. The first one isn't going to happen anytime soon, IMHO, so the second option is the only one. Now can the Dems renege on their campaign promises? I have to think that the culture war card can't be taken back easily and I doubt that any savvy politician will try it. Race seems to be of a limited aspect in the election. I understand that race was the same as patriotism with Bush (you are against freedom if you chose to fight this bill). But as soon as Obama leaves office things should be back to normal in the race arena.

What people do to get elected is going to be expensive and elitist for a LONG time.

[108]

Okay, WHO? Hell, throw me a name for 2020 just for chits and giggles.


And you don't think people vote (or don't vote) out of guilt? How do you explain 2004. Okay, Kerry was a horrible candidate, but you have to admit the "vote for me or you're a traitor" angle played a large role in that campaign.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley

[gator996]

Warner, maybe (Clinton strategy - (D) from Southern State). The rest. No chance whatsoever.

Did you really put Biden on that list? Dude has yet to finish as a runner up in a freakin primary and against duds like Kerry and Gore. What on earth would make you think he has a chance in hell of winning the Presidency, let alone the (D) nomination?


O'Malley is probably #1 on that list...


Who would have thought since Bush II that Romney & McCain would be the best the pubs could put up?


Right now, conservatives are the last people in the country who should be assessing presidential capabilities & demographics...

:laugh:

[MichiGator2002]

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley

The only person who can compete with Bloomberg for the title of America's premier technocratic know-it-all who thinks of himself as parent to a state of infants.

[DaveFla]

An even better question might be, can ANY candidate ever win again without promising to pay off all those who voted for him/her?

[wgbgator]

An even better question might be, can ANY candidate ever win again without promising to pay off all those who voted for him/her?

Uh, hasnt everyone ever elected promised to "pay off" the people who supported them in some way?

[DaveFla]

No...

[g8orbill]

O'Malley is probably #1 on that list...


Who would have thought since Bush II that Romney & McCain would be the best the pubs could put up?


Right now, conservatives are the last people in the country who should be assessing presidential capabilities & demographics...

:laugh:

what a pile of your usual bull mierda

the problem with both McCain and Romney is that neither one were a conservative-and while W may have had some conservative principles he was hardly a fiscal conservative

until the pubs put forth a true conservative I do not think they will win a presidential election

as far as dems go-I do not think it matters who they put forth-as long as they continue the class warfare and giveaways they will have a good chance of winning-the liberals of this country have sold their souls for the gimmies

[gator996]

what a pile of your usual bull mierda

the problem with both McCain and Romney is that neither one were a conservative-and while W may have had some conservative principles he was hardly a fiscal conservative

until the pubs put forth a true conservative I do not think they will win a presidential election

as far as dems go-I do not think it matters who they put forth-as long as they continue the class warfare and giveaways they will have a good chance of winning-the liberals of this country have sold their souls for the gimmies



I could care less why you had problems with Romney or McCain honestly...

I mentioned both of them as examples of guys who had previously lost party nomination campaigns that eventually became the GOP presidential candidate after failing.

So, you're ready to write off Biden for that reason? :rolleyes:

[g8orbill]

I don't really give a damn about Biden-my comment to you was based upon your comment about conservatives

[gator996]

No...



Really?


Who was the last president that ran on no platform at all?

Making good on your campaign promises is "giving stuff" to the people that voted for you...

[wgbgator]

No...

Ok, Dave. I doubt you could be elected as dog catcher without promising something to someone once elected. But maybe somewhere someone was elected by promising not to do anything for anyone. "If elected, your life will be the exact same, maybe even worse." Inspiring rhetoric. :laugh:

[gatorman_07732]

If the white male first apologizes for being a white male then he may have a shot

[DaveFla]

Really?


Who was the last president that ran on no platform at all?

Making good on your campaign promises is "giving stuff" to the people that voted for you...

Who said "no platform at all"? It wasn't me.

[DaveFla]

Ok, Dave. I doubt you could be elected as dog catcher without promising something to someone once elected. But maybe somewhere someone was elected by promising not to do anything for anyone. "If elected, your life will be the exact same, maybe even worse." Inspiring rhetoric. :laugh:

Not a campaign event, but just when is a first-term candidate NOT campaigning?

"Ask not what your country can do for you..."

Doesn't sound like a promise to pay-off to me...

[wgbgator]

Not a campaign event, but just when is a first-term candidate NOT campaigning?

"Ask not what your country can do for you..."

Doesn't sound like a promise to pay-off to me...

Ah, so Kennedy, a New Deal liberal, who campaigned on the "New Frontier" domestic agenda is your go to example of someone who wasnt offering "stuff" to people because one time he gave a speech talking about the virtues of service (which all presidents have done too). :laugh:

[gator996]

An even better question might be, can ANY candidate ever win again without promising to pay off all those who voted for him/her?


An even better question would be what candidate EVER won an election without promising anything?

You act as though this has occured some time in the past but is no longer true today.


When did candidates win previously without promises?

[jimgata]

If a politician cannot win without promises to certain ethnic groups, we have turned the corner on racism, after making some progress, and are now in a downward spiral.
It would be great to vote for the most qualified person, regardless of party, race or religion, that would benefit the nation as a whole.
Unfortunately we are a long way from that, because presently one cannot disagree with policy without being called a hater or racist. Sad!

[gator996]

If a politician cannot win without promises to certain ethnic groups, we have turned the corner on racism, after making some progress, and are now in a downward spiral.
It would be great to vote for the most qualified person, regardless of party, race or religion, that would benefit the nation as a whole.
Unfortunately we are a long way from that, because presently one cannot disagree with policy without being called a hater or racist. Sad!



You do realize "promises" like trickle down economics, regressive tax reforms, immigration, etc. have been conservative promises to whites, right?


I'd love to know what "progress" you perceive the country was making that has now been derailed?


Let me ask you, what should happen with the Voting Rights Act?


Careful, a weak policy argument will draw criticism... :joecool:

[fredsanford]

A better question would be how can a GOP candidate win the WH again when they are seen as the party of intolerance and only out for the rich?

The GOP plan seems to be to pedal the same gobbledygook a little softer and from different messengers. This is unlikely to be successful.

[jimgata]

Progress is not always defined by laws.

[HALLGATOR]

Would Marco Rubio be considered a "white male?" And before someone asks, yes I know he is not a Dem.

[wgbgator]

Would Marco Rubio be considered a "white male?" And before someone asks, yes I know he is not a Dem.

Yes. Hispanic is not a race, its an ethnicity.

[gatorman_07732]

Would Marco Rubio be considered a "white male?" And before someone asks, yes I know he is not a Dem.

Of course he's not

[wgbgator]

Of course he's not

Uh ....

[HALLGATOR]

Of course he's not

Of course he's not...........what?

[JerseyGator01]

The Dem Party in reality has such a small tent of ideas that any white puppet could win with just half the media brainwashing that Obama needed for a former community organizer to win. The Pubs don't win lately because they have much more diversity of thought in the party which often results in a weaker primary candidate (either a blueblood like Romney or a social conservative) getting the nomination. This happens quite frequently in Congress too.

Seriously, the bigger government party doesn't have any serious outspoken factions with anything beyond astroturf (i.e. no real grassroots - see the now defunct OWS).

Look at the US Senate. How many black Dems are in the US Senate? Zero last I checked.

[gatorman_07732]

Of course he's not...........what?

Of course he's not white

[wgbgator]

Of course he's not white

What is he then?

[gatorman_07732]

What is he then?

Latin

[lacuna]

Of course he's not white

You need to take of those very dark sunglasses. This is a white man.

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/marco-rubio-portrait.gif

[wgbgator]

Latin

That's not a race.

[HALLGATOR]

I'm just trying to get the definition of "White" as put forth by the OP. Is it a WASP or just a person who is not Latino, Asian, African or other origin?

[gatorman_07732]

That's not a race.

He is a Latino which is not white

[gatorman_07732]

You need to take of those very dark sunglasses. This is a white man.

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/marco-rubio-portrait.gif

My eyes are just fine, but if you think the man is Caucasian you're wrong

[wgbgator]

He is a Latino which is not white

It can be. George Zimmerman and Marco Rubio are white. Sammy Sosa and Al Horford are black. All are Hispanic/Latino, which is an ethnicity, not a race. Now, I doubt any of those people would identify as "white" or "black" primarily, because they have other associations here, where White=Anglo/European, Black = African American.

[lacuna]

From the U.S. Census bureau:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-4.pdf

"The term "White" refers to people having origins in any of the peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."

[Dreamliner]

Yes, if the exit polls are accurate, blacks, Hispanics and Asians will vote, for an old white man, provided he pledges to expand healthcare and provided that blabbers about race and the wealthy.

[gatorman_07732]

From the U.S. Census bureau:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-4.pdf

"The term "White" refers to people having origins in any of the peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."

Your confused, his bloodlines are from Latin America

[gatorman_07732]

It can be. George Zimmerman and Marco Rubio are white. Sammy Sosa and Al Horford are black. All are Hispanic/Latino, which is an ethnicity, not a race. Now, I doubt any of those people would identify as "white" or "black" primarily, because they have other associations here, where White=Anglo/European, Black = African American.

If you called anyone from Latin America white or whose ancestors came from Latin America white they would think you're crazy. My own family included
Let me make this real easy for you, if he fills out an employment application he ain't checking off white/Caucasian

[DaveFla]

I'm just trying to get the definition of "White" as put forth by the OP. Is it a WASP or just a person who is not Latino, Asian, African or other origin?

We ALL know what the OP was asking. It's just more fun for some here to play coy, rather than to actually address the issue itself.

[lacuna]

Your confused, his bloodlines are from Latin America

His ancestry is Spanish. You know - in Europe.

[gatorman_07732]

His ancestry is Spanish. You know - in Europe.

Nice stretch but his ancestors are from Latin America and we don't consider that white

[lacuna]

Nice stretch but his ancestors are from Latin America

I'll let this comment rest in its inherent ignorance. I'm out.

[gatorman_07732]

I'll let this comment rest in its inherent ignorance. I'm out.

Really? Really?

So I guess on an application he's checking off white/Caucasian.

[HALLGATOR]

Seems there is no real agreement on what constitutes "White." Of course we haven't heard from the OP yet so it's hard to determine exactly what he meant.

[gator996]

The Dem Party in reality has such a small tent of ideas that any white puppet could win with just half the media brainwashing that Obama needed for a former community organizer to win. The Pubs don't win lately because they have much more diversity of thought in the party which often results in a weaker primary candidate (either a blueblood like Romney or a social conservative) getting the nomination. This happens quite frequently in Congress too.

Seriously, the bigger government party doesn't have any serious outspoken factions with anything beyond astroturf (i.e. no real grassroots - see the now defunct OWS).

Look at the US Senate. How many black Dems are in the US Senate? Zero last I checked.


You should check better then...heard of Mo Cowan??? :yes:

[Dreamliner]

New question: wouldn't blacks vote for an old white man named 'Mo' ?

How hard can it possibly be to change your name ?

[Spurffelbow833]

From the U.S. Census bureau:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-4.pdf

"The term "White" refers to people having origins in any of the peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."

You mean like Obama?

[gatorman_07732]

You mean like Obama?

It's amazing how some from the left never admit when they are wrong and just haul arse out of a thread. The new standard is to wipe any heritage from someone in the republican party and label them as white. Lacuna posts is picture and said that is a white man.

[nlsfive]

So Romney was not promising anything right? What about that 20% across the board tax cut (which he never could explain how he was going to pay for) and 2 trillion dollars of additional military spending over the next decade. Furthermore, he wasn't committed to cutting anything other than PBS funding.

[gator996]

Really? Really?

So I guess on an application he's checking off white/Caucasian.



Federal standards have attempted to address the issue by asking ethnic & race questions now...

So, to answer your question you can be hispanic (ethnicity) AND white (race)...

http://www.occ.gov/static/community-affairs/community-developments-newsletter/summer05/cd/ethnicityandrace.htm

[lacuna]

It's amazing how some from the left never admit when they are wrong and just haul arse out of a thread. The new standard is to wipe any heritage from someone in the republican party and label them as white. Lacuna posts is picture and said that is a white man.

The census form I linked earlier stated people who had ancestry from Europe are "white." Let's not confuse the issue with Obama. The census form states the respondent is to mark X for "one or more" races that the respondent "considers him/herself to be." There is no box for "Latino" or "Hispanic."

The form states what I quoted earlier in this thread. People with ancestry from Europe are considered "white." Rubio's ancestors hailed from Spain before sailing to America unknown years ago. If you are so sure Rubio is not 'white', why don't you see if you can find out how he filled out this section on his census form to see what group he self identifies with.

[gatorman_07732]

The census form I linked earlier stated people who had ancestry from Europe are "white." Let's not confuse the issue with Obama. The census form states the respondent is to mark X for "one or more" races that the respondent "considers him/herself to be." There is no box for "Latino" or "Hispanic."

The form states what I quoted earlier in this thread. People with ancestry from Europe are considered "white." Rubio's ancestors hailed from Spain before sailing to America unknown years ago. If you are so sure Rubio is not 'white', why don't you see if you can find out how he filled out this section on his census form to see what group he self identifies with.

I never said a word about Obama so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I can't tell you how many people I know from and currently living in Latin America, my family included and not one of them considers themselves white/Caucasian. I get what you are saying, but why is come election time they are no longer identified as white?

[MichiGator2002]

A better question would be how can a GOP candidate win the WH again when they are seen as the party of intolerance and only out for the rich?

The GOP plan seems to be to pedal the same gobbledygook a little softer and from different messengers. This is unlikely to be successful.

They can win on the condition that the people ignorant enough to think of them as those two things have to grow up someday.

Thing is, I think even the most arch social conservative is more 'tolerant' than the most mild coffeehouse liberal grad student, in every way. The conservative, she may grimace or frown, but she will invariably suffer the pluralist reality of the society she lives with -- she will tolerate it. Coffeehouse lefty guy, he will have to nerdrage and boycott and whimper about everything that doesn't adhere to what his ideals demand, tolerating nothing.

Tolerance, they keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

[CHFG8R]

Yes. Hispanic is not a race, its an ethnicity.

And even that's a reach. Safe to say "Hispanic" incorporates every race in the book actually. There isn't even a common culture. I guess, being "hispanic" means you come from a country that Spain once conquered. But it sure does make the PC police happy when they can put everything in it's own, neat little box, doesn't it?

That said, are Brazilians hispanic?


As for Rubio being a white guy, depends on who you ask. To Mexican's, yes. To Puerto Ricans, maybe. Not sure whether Cubans consider themselves white or not. Probably depends on the time of their flight (the earlier ones are clearly "whiter" than the latter arrivals).

[MichiGator2002]

Maybe Rubio is one those "white Hispanics" the race pumps invented.

[CHFG8R]

The Dem Party in reality has such a small tent of ideas that any white puppet could win with just half the media brainwashing that Obama needed for a former community organizer to win. The Pubs don't win lately because they have much more diversity of thought in the party which often results in a weaker primary candidate (either a blueblood like Romney or a social conservative) getting the nomination. This happens quite frequently in Congress too.

Seriously, the bigger government party doesn't have any serious outspoken factions with anything beyond astroturf (i.e. no real grassroots - see the now defunct OWS).

Look at the US Senate. How many black Dems are in the US Senate? Zero last I checked.

Not true. See 2000. Granted, it's just my opinion, but I cannot see a white guy winning with Obama's message. Imagine some of those words coming from the mouth of a gray-haired white man. You think they resonate the same with those whom it resonated the most? I don't.

If Obama was white, we wouldn't even know his name right now. That's how irrelevant he would be. Again, IMO.

[CHFG8R]

I'm just trying to get the definition of "White" as put forth by the OP. Is it a WASP or just a person who is not Latino, Asian, African or other origin?

Not black, female or non-Cuban (Castillian) Hispanic/Latino/Whatever.

[CHFG8R]

It can be. George Zimmerman and Marco Rubio are white. Sammy Sosa and Al Horford are black. All are Hispanic/Latino, which is an ethnicity, not a race. Now, I doubt any of those people would identify as "white" or "black" primarily, because they have other associations here, where White=Anglo/European, Black = African American.

You do realize how silly this sounds, right? And, being a history major, you are aware that "race" as we like to define it, fluid and is always changing? So, why all this fuss from the left to catagorize? What's the benefit outside of allowing liberals to feel better about themselves in a bizarre, convoluted way?

[CHFG8R]

Your confused, his bloodlines are from Latin America

BUZZZ! Wrong. His bloodlines are clearly from Spain, which is in Europe last time I checked.

So, yes, by PC definition, he is "hispanic" as all Spaniards are. Then again, Italians (especially those south of Tuscany) are pretty much racially identical to Spaniards, yet one is causasian and the other is "hispanic/latino/whatever."

[lacuna]

I never said a word about Obama so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I can't tell you how many people I know from and currently living in Latin America, my family included and not one of them considers themselves white/Caucasian. I get what you are saying, but why is come election time they are no longer identified as white?

In the thread I quoted you responded to a comment about Obama.

http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showpost.php?p=6417904&postcount=58

I can't tell you why your friends or family don't consider themselves "white." Are any of them of mixed ancestry with branches from Africa or native to South America? If they are 100% European ancestry then under the census guidelines they are considered to be "white."

[CHFG8R]

Nice stretch but his ancestors are from Latin America and we don't consider that white

Not your fault. The whole concept of PC Classification is inherently idiotic. You're just now stumbling into one of the many reason's why.

[fredsanford]

They can win on the condition that the people ignorant enough to think of them as those two things have to grow up someday.

Thing is, I think even the most arch social conservative is more 'tolerant' than the most mild coffeehouse liberal grad student, in every way. The conservative, she may grimace or frown, but she will invariably suffer the pluralist reality of the society she lives with -- she will tolerate it. Coffeehouse lefty guy, he will have to nerdrage and boycott and whimper about everything that doesn't adhere to what his ideals demand, tolerating nothing.

Tolerance, they keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

Please. It's all that many of those righties you are describing can do to not utter a certain famous word when the topic of the current POTUS comes up.

Gimme a break.

[CHFG8R]

A better question would be how can a GOP candidate win the WH again when they are seen as the party of intolerance and only out for the rich?

The GOP plan seems to be to pedal the same gobbledygook a little softer and from different messengers. This is unlikely to be successful.

Come on man, got something better than this weak-arsed softball crap. Jesus, at the very least, bring the speed up to BP level on those softballs.

Answer: Hubris. It's why your guy is now in office and why your guys will be out in 3+ years.

[HALLGATOR]

Seems to me then that the question could be asked of both parties since winning the party nomination is only part of the battle. McCain chose a woman and Rubio, whatever anyone calls him, is not the run-of-the-mill White guy as some see it.

[CHFG8R]

Seems to me then that the question could be asked of both parties since winning the party nomination is only part of the battle. McCain chose a woman and Rubio, whatever anyone calls him, is not the run-of-the-mill White guy as some see it.

Very true. Though I'm not sure the (R)s, given that their base is solidly white, are at as much of a disadvantage. The (D)s I'm not so sure of. Again, white guys with hard-left policies have not fared well historically.

Will blacks be as motivated with a white guy running? I think not.

Will non-Cuban hispanics/latino/whatever's connect with a white (D) candidate they way they did with Obama, or do the numbers slip back to 2000/2004 levels? I think so.

As for who will win the "hispanic" vote. Well, if I was planning the strategy, I would use Rubio to divide and conquer that demographic, pitting mexicans against "the rest" of the "hispanic/latino/whatever's."

[wgbgator]

You do realize how silly this sounds, right? And, being a history major, you are aware that "race" as we like to define it, fluid and is always changing? So, why all this fuss from the left to catagorize? What's the benefit outside of allowing liberals to feel better about themselves in a bizarre, convoluted way?

Sure, race is a somewhat arbitrary concept that people created long ago. It's human nature to classify and categorize, and there are always outliers and grey areas that put those concepts to the test as far as their validity or efficacy. As far as 21st century liberals go, they are primarily interested in intitutional & social problems relating to the legacies of legal classifications and concepts relating to race not of their own devising. Categorization doesnt have to be inherently "bad," and it can be useful, which is why people did it in the first place.

[lacuna]

http://www.buildupzion.org/articles/76-diaspora/252-origin-of-sephardic-jews

The year 1492 is known for the discovery of the New World. However another historical event of equal significance also happened during this period. The anti-Semitic act of the Catholic Spanish Monarchy of Ferdinand and Isabella, or as more commonly known, the Spanish Inquisition, occurred during this time. This act had as its end result the expulsion from Spain of all non converted Jews.

With the establishment of the Edict of Expulsion of 14921, the Sephardic, or Spanish Jews, (the term Sephardic has its roots in the Hebrew term for the Iberian Peninsula, Sefarad) found themselves facing the dilemma of whether or not to remain in Spain. To remain in Spain meant the Jew would have to deny his beliefs and traditions, convert to Christianity and submit to the supervision of the Spanish Monarchy, to do otherwise would result in torture and possibly death. His only remaining option was to leave his home with only those few personal belongings he could carry. The Edict of Expulsion carried with it the appropriation and seizure by the monarchy of all earthly properties belonging to the Jew. The ideals for which so many Jews fought, the idea of a different Spain, one with greater honesty, integrity, well being for all, coexistence, freedom and tolerance were crushed in the rabid desire to be rid of the Jews.

The process of religious and state persecution of the Jews, the Spanish final solution to the Jewish “problem” was selective, massive and consistently repetitive. Those that finally managed to leave Spain were sheltered by countries such as Portugal, Morocco and Turkey. However, the Portuguese crown soon followed the Spanish example and launched its own decree “baptism or expulsion”, forcing the persecution of non-converting Jews. The Spanish-Portuguese Jew found himself wandering once more. Fleeing Jews initially found refuge in Turkey and North Africa and then the rest of Europe.

While expulsion was taking place the expansion and colonization of the New World was also occurring. Some Sephardic Jews took advantage of this and tried to escape the horrors of the Inquisition by fleeing to the coasts of the American continent. Many of those who embarked with Christopher Columbus on his voyages were really Jewish “marranos”, (a Spanish derogatory term literally translated pigs), who took the opportunity to leave Spain. With great pride and fanfare the Spanish Catholic religious authority described the new Jewish converts as “marranos” effectively classifying their newly converted “Christian brothers” as pigs. Thus the true anti-Semitic sentiment of the institutionalized universal church was evident. This abjectly obscene manner of treating the Jews is still evident in today’s church. It is inexplicable and indignant to witness the vain and presumptuous behavior of the Spanish Church. More terrible still is the manner in which Sephardic Jews found themselves dispersed, wandering to the remotest parts of the planet only to have the horrors of the Spanish Holy Inquisition2 visited upon them again and again. All this serves as evidence of the corruption and aberrant behavior of the institutional church. From the 15th century on the Inquisition maintained its power, pursuing “crypto-Jews” around the world. It wasn’t until the 19th century that it officially closed following the papal decree of July 15 1834.

3.Some common Sephardic last names are: Arevalo, Alcazar, Ayala, Ballestero, Becerra, Buendia, Bueno, Diaz, Espina, Franco, Falcon, Flores, Fuentes, Garcia, Gato, Gomez, Granado, Guzman, Gonzales, Jimenez, Luna, Levi, Lopez, Leon, Medina, Meza, Montiel, Morales, Naranjo, Navarro, Pardo, Paredes, Pulgar, Quemada, Rubio, Ramirez, Rangel, Rodriguez, Sevilla, Sevillano, Soto, Silvera, Toledo, Torre, Toro, Talavera, Uria, Vargas, Vasquez, Vidal, Villareal y Yepez although the list is not exhaustive.

[gatorman_07732]

In the thread I quoted you responded to a comment about Obama.

http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showpost.php?p=6417904&postcount=58

I can't tell you why your friends or family don't consider themselves "white." Are any of them of mixed ancestry with branches from Africa or native to South America? If they are 100% European ancestry then under the census guidelines they are considered to be "white."

It doesn't matter how the U.S. crafted the census and I doubt you can explain their reasons for how they decided to manipulate their data. Don't they have a choice for other race? Yeah, 18 million Hispanics picked “some other race”. How the heck can you be a minority and white at the same time? Whether its Central America or South America people don't identify with being White/Caucasian. The U.S. government has been very inconsistent on this to say the least and when it suits their purposes they are singled out as a non-white group.

[CHFG8R]

Sure, race is a somewhat arbitrary concept that people created long ago. It's human nature to classify and categorize, and there are always outliers and grey areas that put those concepts to the test as far as their validity or efficacy. As far as 21st century liberals go, they are primarily interested in intitutional & social problems relating to the legacies of legal classifications and concepts relating to race not of their own devising. Categorization doesnt have to be inherently "bad," and it can be useful, which is why people did it in the first place.

Well, from my studies, I've come to the conclusion that race is utterly arbitrary and the "hispanic" label is chock full of "outliers and grey areas." Hell the whole thing is one giant Gray Area.

Again. What about Brazilians? What about Philipinos? What about Peruvians, Chilians and Columbians and all that asian influence?

As for your last point, where is the usefullness? IMO, and despite the intentions of its inventors, this aspect of PC just divides us further. Which, IMO, is the point at this point in the game. The bottom line on all the issues in question is class, not race or ethnicity. The latter is just a tool of the political types, IMO, to keep us divided.

[wgbgator]

Well, from my studies, I've come to the conclusion that race is utterly arbitrary and the "hispanic" label is chock full of "outliers and grey areas." Hell the whole thing is one giant Gray Area.

Again. What about Brazilians? What about Philipinos? What about Peruvians, Chilians and Columbians and all that asian influence?

As for your last point, where is the usefullness? IMO, and despite the intentions of its inventors, this aspect of PC just divides us further. Which, IMO, is the point at this point in the game. The bottom line on all the issues in question is class, not race or ethnicity. The latter is just a tool of the political types, IMO, to keep us divided.

If people didn't divide themselves naturally, then these concepts would have no application, nor would anyone give them name. Thats why I said "somewhat" arbitrary, because they werent exactly pulled out of thin air. Besides, these arent universal concepts by any means. "White" is different in Brazil. Indeed, back in the day they had all sorts of catigorizations and names for degrees of African ancestry or mixed lineages that mostly didnt matter in America, where almost any black blood made you black, unless you could "pass" for white.

Also, you bring up class, which is itself a categorization based on certain observable criteria.

[MichiGator2002]

Please. It's all that many of those righties you are describing can do to not utter a certain famous word when the topic of the current POTUS comes up.

Gimme a break.

Which word is that? You are trolling life if you think that conservatives don't do a good enough job referring to him by title. I think the next time you say "President" Bush will be the first.

[CHFG8R]

If people didn't divide themselves naturally, then these concepts would have no application, nor would anyone give them name. Thats why I said "somewhat" arbitrary, because they werent exactly pulled out of thin air. Besides, these arent universal concepts by any means. "White" is different in Brazil. Indeed, back in the day they had all sorts of catigorizations and names for degrees of African ancestry or mixed lineages that mostly didnt matter in America, where almost any black blood made you black, unless you could "pass" for white.

Also, you bring up class, which is itself a categorization based on certain observable criteria.

Would you agree that race is used to divide the lower class?

And by class, I mean haves and have nots. Or, better yet. Haves. Have somes (middle class). Have nots. The fact that, in most cases, the poor black is pitted against the poor white against the poor hispanic, IMO, just serves the politicians and special interests.

That poor, rural (mostly southern) whites and African Americans would respectively throw in completely with one party, IMO, just marginalizes their positions and allows them to be taken for granted.

It's the kind of stuff that makes me think C&G may not be as crazy as we think.

[gator996]

Very true. Though I'm not sure the (R)s, given that their base is solidly white, are at as much of a disadvantage. The (D)s I'm not so sure of. Again, white guys with hard-left policies have not fared well historically.

Will blacks be as motivated with a white guy running? I think not.

Will non-Cuban hispanics/latino/whatever's connect with a white (D) candidate they way they did with Obama, or do the numbers slip back to 2000/2004 levels? I think so.

As for who will win the "hispanic" vote. Well, if I was planning the strategy, I would use Rubio to divide and conquer that demographic, pitting mexicans against "the rest" of the "hispanic/latino/whatever's."



That sounds like a whole lot of racial strategy & assumption...

"Blacks won't be motivated..."
"Divide & conquer the hispanic vote..."
"Non-cuban hispanics won't connect with a white dem candidate..."



Conservatives have yet to learn what happened in 2008& 2012...



You lost on issues....not on demographics alone.

[wgbgator]

Would you agree that race is used to divide the lower class?

And by class, I mean haves and have nots. Or, better yet. Haves. Have somes (middle class). Have nots. The fact that, in most cases, the poor black is pitted against the poor white against the poor hispanic, IMO, just serves the politicians and special interests.

That poor, rural (mostly southern) whites and African Americans would respectively throw in completely with one party, IMO, just marginalizes their positions and allows them to be taken for granted.

It's the kind of stuff that makes me think C&G may not be as crazy as we think.

Sure, racial prejudice (among other things) has and continues to be a way to unsettle people who have similar economic interests who might otherwise cooperate. Many of those racial resentments and prejudices pre-date industrial era notions of class though, so its hard to say they were created only for the benefit of capital to keep labor in check in a C&G-style conspiracy. If capital didn't have race, it would use something else to keep people from cooperating (fear of losing a job if you unionize, etc). People naturally divide themselves, so that can always be exploited if you have the will and motive to do so.

[CHFG8R]

Sure, racial prejudice (among other things) has and continues to be a way to unsettle people who have similar economic interests who might otherwise cooperate. Many of those racial resentments and prejudices pre-date industrial era notions of class though, so its hard to say they were created only for the benefit of capital to keep labor in check in a C&G-style conspiracy. If capital didn't have race, it would use something else to keep people from cooperating (fear of losing a job if you unionize, etc). People naturally divide themselves, so that can always be exploited if you have the will and motive to do so.

I think we agree. I think Class was probably to vague in this sense (class now & class then aren't necessarily the same) and I didn't mean to allude that these divisions were created. Exploited, as you correctly put it, is the more correct term. Though I would argue that capital isn't the only side that exploits these things.

[CHFG8R]

That sounds like a whole lot of racial strategy & assumption...

"Blacks won't be motivated..."
"Divide & conquer the hispanic vote..."
"Non-cuban hispanics won't connect with a white dem candidate..."



Conservatives have yet to learn what happened in 2008& 2012...



You lost on issues....not on demographics alone.

I'm going to drink your tears like fine wine in 4 years. Not because I'm a (R), but because I really like being right.

Hubris, folks. It is alive and well on the left and it's why Rubio (or Bush) will be your next President.

[wgbgator]

I think we agree. I think Class was probably to vague in this sense (class now & class then aren't necessarily the same) and I didn't mean to allude that these divisions were created. Exploited, as you correctly put it, is the more correct term. Though I would argue that capital isn't the only side that exploits these things.

Power is probably a better term than "capital," though capital is almost always in a position of power over labor historically. But using the USSR as an example, you can see how race/religion/class can be used by a nominal worker's state in a similar way - with the liquidation of the Kulaks, the anti-Jewish progroms, etc.

[gator996]

I'm going to drink your tears like fine wine in 4 years. Not because I'm a (R), but because I really like being right.

Hubris, folks. It is alive and well on the left and it's why Rubio (or Bush) will be your next President.


I know you think you'll be correct about 2016 but...

What I find amusing is that one of the most frequent "whining" points from conservatives here is how democrats are the real notorious race card players...


And then you see a electoral analysis like this one built on nothing but racial politics...


Were you correct about black turnout in 2012?
How about white male turnout in 2012?
Were you right about the women's vote in 2012?
How about the latino or asian vote?


Do minorities vote on race alone in your mind?

Or, are they issue voters like everyone else?

[mocgator]

I really don't think many people vote out of guilt

But to answer your question, YES

The definition of a liberal is "guilt" and "self loathing".

[wgbgator]

The definition of a liberal is "guilt" and "self loathing".

I think you're confusing all liberals with a stock Woody Allen protagonist.

[CHFG8R]

I know you think you'll be correct about 2016 but...

What I find amusing is that one of the most frequent "whining" points from conservatives here is how democrats are the real notorious race card players...


And then you see a electoral analysis like this one built on nothing but racial politics...


Were you correct about black turnout in 2012?
How about white male turnout in 2012?
Were you right about the women's vote in 2012?
How about the latino or asian vote?


Do minorities vote on race alone in your mind?

Or, are they issue voters like everyone else?

I'm not an (R) and I never made any claims about turnout. Just making an observation and noting that, IMO, there is opportunity given the hubris and overreaching of (D)s (FWIW, the last administration followed the same path).

As for the last question. I think the minority angle definitely played a role. I think it heavily effected the media, who outside of FOX (in the tank the other way) was completely in the tank for Obama. Compare this to 2000, when the coverage was much more even handed - and the (D) policies more centrist. And certainly, most blacks were strongly motivated by race in this election, and understandably so. To deny otherwise is just silly. I would also venture to guess that latinos expecially and asians to some degree were also motivated by it. Again, it only makes sense given their history in this country.

So, no, I don't think the (D)s won on ideas. I think they won on fear mongering, a complient media and, yes, race. I mean, what were these grand ideas Obama was selling. What I heard was a lot of talking down about the other guy's ideas.

[108]

the white male victimhood is strong in this thread

what's the point of this thread anyways? Does it matter to you what race or sex the President is?

[108]

That sounds like a whole lot of racial strategy & assumption...

"Blacks won't be motivated..."
"Divide & conquer the hispanic vote..."
"Non-cuban hispanics won't connect with a white dem candidate..."



Conservatives have yet to learn what happened in 2008& 2012...



You lost on issues....not on demographics alone.

the seem to think its the messenger :cry:

shh

put a dark face out there and our pile of sht will be more palatable :joecool:

[CHFG8R]

the white male victimhood is strong in this thread

what's the point of this thread anyways? Does it matter to you what race or sex the President is?

No. Or at least it shouldn't. However, given the power of it in the last 2 elections, I wonder if the (D)s wouldn't be seduced by the concept. It will be interesting to see. If the (D)s put up another Gore, Ted Kennedy, etc. against a more dynamic ticket on the (R) side, one perhaps influenced somewhat by race (Rubio), can they prevail on the current menu of (D) "ideas"?

I would like to say that I desperately hope this isn't a trend for the future. It would be a horrible thing to see the parties divided along those kinds of lines.

[108]

No. Or at least it shouldn't. However, given the power of it in the last 2 elections, I wonder if the (D)s wouldn't be seduced by the concept. It will be interesting to see. If the (D)s put up another Gore, Ted Kennedy, etc. against a more dynamic ticket on the (R) side, one perhaps influenced somewhat by race (Rubio), can they prevail on the current menu of (D) "ideas"?

I would like to say that I desperately hope this isn't a trend for the future. It would be a horrible thing to see the parties divided along those kinds of lines.

the thing is, (D) ideas have generally stayed the same regardless of the messenger, and they will push them regardless of what the color or sex is of their candidate or the opposing candidate

if the (R) party doesn't get away from this perception that they are just puppets for the rich, it won't matter who is the messenger

[CHFG8R]

the thing is, (D) ideas have generally stayed the same regardless of the messenger, and they will push them regardless of what the color or sex is of their candidate or the opposing candidate

if the (R) party doesn't get away from this perception that they are just puppets for the rich, it won't matter who is the messenger

I wouldn't write their obit just yet. That's been the perception for over 100 years. Hell, you could take it back over 1000 to the Patricians and Plebians.

[gatorman_07732]

the thing is, (D) ideas have generally stayed the same regardless of the messenger, and they will push them regardless of what the color or sex is of their candidate or the opposing candidate

if the (R) party doesn't get away from this perception that they are just puppets for the rich, it won't matter who is the messenger

Dem's are much better at marketing their ideas that are inherently flawed with the target minority groups and the poor that basically say "don't ask what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you". Republicans are absolutely poor at marketing their ideas and are now going to try out liberal the liberals. More government is better.

[CHFG8R]

the thing is, (D) ideas have generally stayed the same regardless of the messenger, and they will push them regardless of what the color or sex is of their candidate or the opposing candidate

if the (R) party doesn't get away from this perception that they are just puppets for the rich, it won't matter who is the messenger

I also think you're making my point for me. Minus a person of tremendous charasmatic ability (Clinton, Obama) or impeechment/resignation (Carter), the (D)s don't win on their ideas. The (R)s meanwhile, won with Bush. George. W. Bush.

[wgbgator]

Bush got like what 35-40% of the Latino vote? Not that the GOP is doomed in 2016, but Rubio, assuming he's the nominee would need to a) keep Romney's votes from whites. b) probably need to top Bush' performance among Latinos, c) hope African American turnout is down from the last 2 elections, d) hope the economy is still sputtering.

So, who's to say a Clinton v. Rubio matchup doesnt bring some white voters back into the Democratic fold (it probably puts West Virginia back in the D column at least :))? Or what if the economy is strong enough where the Ds are claiming credit? Or what if Rubio or Clinton arent the nominees at all? 4 years is an eternity.

[JerseyGator01]

Both parties are the parties of the rich. That's why lobbyist spouses in DC fall into the 1%. Yeah, Kerry was all about the poor people while he was taking a windsurfing photo op. Gore, the son of a US Senator, was all about the poor people. Dukakis was the son of Harvard doc and grew up in that notorious ghetto known as Brookline, MA.

It may be the media's perception, but it's not the perception of most with brain matter.

[rivergator]

I also think you're making my point for me. Minus a person of tremendous charasmatic ability (Clinton, Obama) or impeechment/resignation (Carter), the (D)s don't win on their ideas. The (R)s meanwhile, won with Bush. George. W. Bush.

what were Bush's ideas?

[Minister_of_Information]

I like Evan Bayh, former Indiana Senator, a lot. But I don't know if he can win.

[CHFG8R]

what were Bush's ideas?

An unnecessary tax cut? He wasn't a member of the Clinton administration?

You tell me. And yet he won. You think if Obama's words were coming out of Bush's mouth he'd have won?

[JerseyGator01]

The media thinks Bush won because he clung to his guns and religion.

[GatorAvatar]

A better question would be how can a GOP candidate win the WH again when they are seen as the party of intolerance and only out for the rich?

The GOP plan seems to be to pedal the same gobbledygook a little softer and from different messengers. This is unlikely to be successful.

What the OP should have asked.

[GatorAvatar]

White person is anyone of Anglo or Germanic heritage.

[GatorAvatar]

Another strategy that the GOP can use to win: stop blacks and Latinos from voting.

[fredsanford]

Another strategy that the GOP can use to win: stop blacks and Latinos from voting.

They'll keep trying.

[wargunfan]

The next white male Democrat candidate to run against a Republican for president will be the one who can convince primary voters that he will appoint liberal justices to the SCOTUS, protect abortion rights, grant amnesty to illegals, favor the unions, promote black racial interests, enact gun control, make gays a protected victim group and keep the government gravy train rolling. That covers most of the Democrat coalition.

[chemgator]

Uh, hasnt everyone ever elected promised to "pay off" the people who supported them in some way?
How about a candidate who doesn't promise to pay off his supporters while robbing someone else, and saying that redistribution is a rising tide that lifts all boats. Is that too much to ask for?

[chemgator]

As long as Nancy Pelosi or Hilary Clinton is the leading female candidate, and Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton is the leading black candidate, then a white male has a decent chance of being nominated for the democrats.