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

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

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]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by gator996

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]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

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]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

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]

Originally Posted by 108

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]

Originally Posted by mocgator

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

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

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by gator996

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]

Originally Posted by gator996

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

shh

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

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

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]

Originally Posted by 108

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]

Originally Posted by 108

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]

Originally Posted by 108

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.