• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Month Out: Presidential Election Predictions

palmab03 said:
Voting based on land mass makes a helluva lot more sense than voting based on population.
Click to expand...

jeremiah_johnson_nodding-Robert-Redford.gif
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I haven't given much thought to it because I just don't care but after a few seconds I've concluded that you're likely senile and became so sometime between your second vote for Obama in 2012 and your vote for Donald in 2016.

I'd chalk senility up as a disruptive factor.
Click to expand...

That's the best thing you could come up with? LOL. Just stay in denial that you liberals are leading the nation off a cliff....and, by the way....making race relations much, much worse than they were before you decided to begin this PC crusade. People like me are part of your casualties. I didn't leave the Democratic Party because I all of a sudden became senile.....but you guys, in all of your arrogance, are completely unable to see that.

Also, winning a state that is 89% white by only 21% of the vote isn't even in the same league as winning the black vote by 95% to 5%.
 
bobknightfan said:
That's the best thing you could come up with? LOL. Just stay in denial that you liberals are leading the nation off a cliff....and, by the way....making race relations much, much worse than they were before you decided to begin this PC crusade. People like me are part of your casualties. I didn't leave the Democratic Party because I all of a sudden became senile.....but you guys, in all of your arrogance, are completely unable to see that.

Also, winning a state that is 89% white by only 21% of the vote isn't even in the same league as winning the black vote by 95% to 5%.
Click to expand...

Senile old man doesn't identify that he's senile? Shocking !
 
bobknightfan said:
That's the best thing you could come up with? LOL. Just stay in denial that you liberals are leading the nation off a cliff....and, by the way....making race relations much, much worse than they were before you decided to begin this PC crusade. People like me are part of your casualties. I didn't leave the Democratic Party because I all of a sudden became senile.....but you guys, in all of your arrogance, are completely unable to see that.

Also, winning a state that is 89% white by only 21% of the vote isn't even in the same league as winning the black vote by 95% to 5%.
Click to expand...

fundamentally, your argument is that it's ok if white people vote for a person because they like his message but if black people vote for a person because they like her message it's not ok
 
ImTheCaptain said:
fundamentally, your argument is that it's ok if white people vote for a person because they like his message but if black people vote for a person because they like her message it's not ok
Click to expand...

Right and the underlying point in the context of "convincing the masses" is that BKF is viewing it through a race lens ("democrats are getting a large percentage of the black vote") rather than through a plethora of other lens available (geographic, sex, gender diversity or...total popular vote!)
 
ImTheCaptain said:
fundamentally, your argument is that it's ok if white people vote for a person because they like his message but if black people vote for a person because they like her message it's not ok
Click to expand...

White people don't deliver 95% margins. Comparing the two as voting blocs is ridiculous.
 
bobknightfan said:
White people don't deliver 95% margins. Comparing the two as voting blocs is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You're the one comparing them. You chose race as the only lens to use in a discussion of why Democrats were unable to "convince the masses" in 2016.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
you're the one comparing them
Click to expand...

No I wasn't. I wasn't the one who brought up white votes in Montana as a comparative voting bloc (which made no sense anyway when you looked at the numbers. Montana, which is 89% white, has a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator. You would never ever see the reverse of that in a place where black voters comprised 89% of the population.) When you consistently deliver 95% of your vote to one party, you are, by definition, a solid voting bloc. There is no comparison between white voters and black voters when looking at the two groups as voter blocs.
 
Why don't you compare black voters as a solid Democratic voting bloc with evangelical Christians as a solid Republican voting bloc? 81% of the white evangelical vote went for Donald and this made up 25% of the entire electorate. So the impact comparing the black support for Hillary (12% of the electorate voted for Hillary at 88%) with white evangelical Christians (25% of the electorate, voted for Donald at 81%) and it really makes your argument ("when you consistently deliver 95% of your vote to one party, you are, by definition, a solid voting bloc") look cherry picked.

88% of the vote of 12% of the electorate is a total of 10.56%
81% of the vote of 25% of the electorate is a total of 20.25%

The solid voting bloc of white evangelicals in the 2016 election were roughly twice as impactful overall as the solid voting bloc of blacks.

Why not compare these if your argument is looking at solid voting blocs?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The bottom line is that any argument BKF is going to put forward about the EC all comes back to his favoring geographic diversity in furtherance of his continued disdain for people of color - the "13%" if you will.
Click to expand...

Yeah the guy is an embarrassment, fucking clown
 
bobknightfan said:
No I wasn't. I wasn't the one who brought up white votes in Montana as a comparative voting bloc (which made no sense anyway when you looked at the numbers. Montana, which is 89% white, has a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator. You would never ever see the reverse of that in a place where black voters comprised 89% of the population.) When you consistently deliver 95% of your vote to one party, you are, by definition, a solid voting bloc. There is no comparison between white voters and black voters when looking at the two groups as voter blocs.
Click to expand...

Fuck off turd
 
bobknightfan said:
No I wasn't. I wasn't the one who brought up white votes in Montana as a comparative voting bloc (which made no sense anyway when you looked at the numbers. Montana, which is 89% white, has a Democratic governor and a Democratic senator. You would never ever see the reverse of that in a place where black voters comprised 89% of the population.) When you consistently deliver 95% of your vote to one party, you are, by definition, a solid voting bloc. There is no comparison between white voters and black voters when looking at the two groups as voter blocs.
Click to expand...

Maybe blacks pay attention to who has their best interests. Republicans killed the CETA program. Republicans killed their own Enterprise Zones. Republicans tried to kill Pell Grants. in state after state, Republicans passed voter suppression laws that targeted blacks that federal judges in NC, WI and TX ruled did this. Republicans have wanted to end Affirmative Action for decades but have never offered to end the white preferences in admissions, hiring or contracts.

Those are just some of the reasons blacks don't for Republicans. I'm shocked as many a 5% do vote for the GOP. The only groups that surprises me more than the black number is that any member of the LGBTQ community would consider voting for a Republican given how many laws Republicans have passed and tried to passed making the LGBTQ community second class and lower than that citizen. It amazed me that any Hispanics would vote for Trump or other Republicans.

But the GOP is doing everything it can to give old white guys as much as they can.

My bad, BKF knows what's best for "the blacks".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top