Obama wins re-election

[jhale667]

What part of "don't vote against your best interests" aren't these assholes getting?

Seriously though, who could blame a Black person for voting against someone who literally believes they are an inferior race, cursed by Elohim, because their ancestors were angels who were too lazy to fight ME?

That wouldn't exactly inspire me to vote for him.

Ya think? Gee, why would a black person that voted for Wrongney possibly be considered a "traitor" - or at the very least, self-loathing? Yeah, vote for the guy whose church only recognized you as a human 10 year after the civil rights movement BECAUSE THEY HAD TO or lose their tax exemption... FUCK YOU.

Yeah, so everybody can STFU with the "blacks only voted for Obama cuz of HIS race" shit already . Idiots. Romney was DQ'd out of the gate with that demographic, and rightly so.

[Nickdfresh]

They can finally replace their Superbowl Champion Buffalo Bills tattered sweatshirts!

[Von Halen]

Now that is funny!

[BigBadBrian]

The problem with your (as usual) idiotic premise is you so desperately want to believe that blacks that voted for him are voting to "rely on government" you racist fucktard.
Maybe they voted for Obama because Romney's a POS.

Not all, of course, but exit polls show low-income minorities voted for Obama in large part because he was, in their words, going "to give us stuff."

[jhale667]

You need to wake the fuck up.

Riiiiight. One person's quote speaks for all. Idiot. HERE'S why you lost, and will continue to lose - face it, LOSER.

Against Demographics

http://gawker.com/5958900/against-demographics?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

As my colleague Cord Jefferson notes, the 2012 election returns have been widely interpreted as the ratification of an ethno-political realignment that first occurred in 2008: Black, Latino, and Asian voters are firmly in the Democratic column, and they will remain so in ever greater numbers. The white population is shrinking relative to its brown counterparts, and demography is destiny. Brown people are Democrats, white people are Republicans, and brown people are having more babies. Good luck, GOP!
This narrative has been seized by both sides. On election night, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly mournfully announced the death of the "white establishment" and calmly explained to his viewers that black and brown people simply outnumbered them now, and would be coming soon for their "stuff." Joyous liberals have essentially endorsed that analysis (minus the racism): After decades of marginalization, the nonwhite electorate is finally—and permanently—making its voice heard in a decisive way.

At some level, that demographic view of the 2012 election is inarguably sound. It worked. Obama set out a year ago to mobilize black, Latino, and Asian voters (as well as young ones). He did, and he won. And to the extent that, in secret war rooms full of humming servers and gimlet-eyed operatives, narrow demographic coalition-building works as a political strategy for electing Democrats, I heartily endorse it.

But it's a lousy way to explain elections to the public, and to think about politics. Black people have reasons beyond their blackness for favoring Barack Obama. So do Latinos. And Asians. Barack Obama didn't win by getting more nonwhite people to the polls. He won by advocating policies that appeal to more people, period. To splinter that appeal into ethnic categories is useful to the folks concerned with what's under the hood of the campaign machinery, and it's important to know how those people view their jobs. But to chalk up the nonwhite vote to a simple "Latinos vote Democrat" formula does a disservice to real policy preferences that exist independently of, and matter much more than, the race of the voter.

The black vote, for instance, is commonly thought by right-wing Republicans to have gone almost exclusively to Barack Obama in 2008 and this week as a matter of racial solidarity: An expression of tribalism, not rational preference. To some extent, that's probably true (and eminently unobjectionable, given the historical breakthrough he represents). But Jimmy Carter received 83% of the African-American vote in 1980, versus Obama's 93%. There's obviously something more than blackness at work. Black people tend to vote Democratic not because they are black, or because their candidate is black, but because the Democratic Party embraces policy proposals around a number of areas—particularly education and urban poverty—that many African-Americans also embrace.

The Latino vote is of course a function of the GOP's toxic attitude toward immigrants and their children. But the pride on the left at having won that group—the Latinos are ours!—threatens to reduce those voters to mere self-interested actors who vote for the people who are nicest to their race. When Romney surrogate John Sununu dismissed Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama as unthinking racialism, rather than a thoughtful choice, he was roundly castigated. Every Obama voter deserves the same respect that Sununu failed to show Powell—the presumption that their votes are based on values and reason rather than thoughtless self-interest.

One of the reasons the right-wing "brown people won" argument is so irksome is the implication that nonwhite votes don't really count in the way white ones do. That white people vote based on logic and argumentation, and are persuadable, but nonwhites just press the "D" button and wait for their Obamaphones. That appealing to white votes and nonwhite votes are fundamentally different things. We would have won—we had more votes, but they had the blacks. What are you gonna do?

This is vile. All votes are the same. Persuading an African-American to vote for increasing taxes on the wealthy is precisely the same as persuading a white voter. Every Latino who cares about the treatment of illegal immigrants in this country and so voted for Obama did so for the same reason I did. There's no difference between us. But the giddiness among the left over the racial coalition Obama built sometimes strikes me as uncomfortably close to eliding that fundamental equality, and regarding nonwhite votes as gimmes that don't require persuasion. And it subtly ghettoizes those nonwhite voters, splintering issues of national importance into slivers of self-interest. Obama didn't win because Latino voters want immigration reform. He won because more Americans want immigration reform than don't.

I don't mean to say that race doesn't matter, or that we are all atomized political actors calmly evaluating positions without reference to our own cultural identities. And the overwhelming margins Obama got among nonwhite voters speak for themselves. But when it comes to explaining and analyzing the results, we do those voters a disservice if we let their race stand in for their reasons.

(By the way, Cord's boss and mine has crudely dismissed the view that Obama won because of a realignment in the nonwhite vote as "Brown Triumphalism." Nick is wrong. The demographic trends are real and will grow. The close overall margin this year doesn't negate the long-term impact that 71% of Hispanics voting Democratic will have on our politics. I don't dispute the trends; merely the weight we place on race as an explanatory tool.)

[kwame k]

Not all, of course, but exit polls show low-income minorities voted for Obama in large part because he was, in their words, going "to give us stuff."

Got a source on that or link.....other than Rush said so, I mean.

[BigBadBrian]

Got a source on that or link.....other than Rush said so, I mean.

It was a report I saw on TV. No, not Fox either. Either CNN or MSDNC....one of those Leftist channels. Google it.

[Nitro Express]

I see it this way. Both the Republicans and Democrats had 40 years to fix the country when it started on it's down hill slope. Both have failed. You just can't have half the country living off the other half that is working. It becomes a bigger problem when you have outsourced your manufacturing base (the foundation to any large economy) and got rid of all the entry level and mid management jobs. Also, you have a major problem printing huge amounts of money and being in huge amounts of debt.

Sure you can get elected giving people something but the time will come where there is no money that's worth anything to buy the gifts. Then what are those people going to do? The biggest victims in this scenario are the people getting the gifts. It's like spoiling children. You aren't doing them any favors. The problem is the politicians want to keep these people dependent. It's their voting base. I'm sorry but you just don't build a worthwhile economy or country on that model. People need jobs. I'm not against a safety cushion but I'm against this people being on welfare for generations. Also, you can't keep bailing out the banks when they fail. That's welfare for the rich. It's not just the lower class that is the problem.

The thing is one party defines one part of the problem and the other party defines the other part of the problem but neither one is identifying the whole problem and that is why nothing gets fixed.

I'm pretty fed up with the nonsense. When that many people believe they are entitled to something from someone else, you will never amount to much. It's like trying to pull a big heavy wagon up the hill with two few horses. Eventually the horses die.

I really don't see Obama helping anyone. If he said I'm going to create some real shovel ready jobs and get your lazy asses to work and provide a pathway out of your poverty then that would be great. Giving them phones? It's a disposable present that only spoils them.

[kwame k]

It was a report I saw on TV. No, not Fox either. Either CNN or MSDNC....one of those Leftist channels. Google it.

So in other words......you're talking out of your ass again

[Satan]

It was a report I saw on TV. No, not Fox either. Either CNN or MSDNC....one of those Leftist channels. Google it.

Who on CNN is remotely "leftist"??

That channel took a hard right turn the day TimeWarner/AOL took over, and they haven't stopped turning yet. It's no coincidence that the few actual news people who worked there (Aaron Brown, Bernie Shaw, etc.) left soon after that. Larry King was probably the last remnant of the true CNN, and he finally got fed up with it. (Did a great job at the "Third Party" Presidential Debate though)

[DavidLeeNatra]

It was a report I saw on TV. No, not Fox either. Either CNN or MSDNC....one of those Leftist channels. Google it.

but then it can't be true! that's what you tell everybody when they post reports with facts about Bush or Dumpney coming from these sources...

[jhale667]

but then it can't be true! that's what you tell everybody when they post reports with facts about Bush or Dumpney coming from these sources...

Dude, stop disrupting his narrative by pointing out his hypocrisy! :D

[Nitro Express]

If you wanted shovel ready projects, you needed a lot more than $5 Trillion, bubs. And "he" wasn't the only one spending "it." Obama was continuing, and albeit expanding, what Bush started in his extremely ineffectual final days. Maybe you can shovel some of your bullshit...

Dude. The Gross National Product of the whole United States is $15 Trillion. $5 Trillion is a third of the whole GNP. That isn't enough money? Hell with the money Obama blew on all those crazy go nowhere green companies he could have put people to work rebuilding roads and bridges. Whats the long-term vision here? More than half the country living off the other half who pay the taxes? while the government spending goes up and up and the taxes go up and up and the money becomes worth less. Do you get it? Don't you think the other half eventually will say,"Fuck this shit, we are out of here!" Then you lose your tax base and you have all these people who depend on it. It look like a pretty good disaster to me.

Where are the jobs? What's Obama's plan besides buying votes with my money?

[DavidLeeNatra]

Dude. The Gross National Product of the whole United States is $15 Trillion. $5 Trillion is a third of the whole GNP. That isn't enough money? Hell with the money Obama blew on all those crazy go nowhere green companies he could have put people to work rebuilding roads and bridges. Whats the long-term vision here? More than half the country living off the other half who pay the taxes? while the government spending goes up and up and the taxes go up and up and the money becomes worth less. Do you get it? Don't you think the other half eventually will say,"Fuck this shit, we are out of here!" Then you lose your tax base and you have all these people who depend on it. It look like a pretty good disaster to me.

Where are the jobs? What's Obama's plan besides buying votes with my money?

[ELVIS]