Hilary to vote no on Roberts.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Except in 1992, when the GOP got 38% of the vote. Since then, the Democrats garnered more votes until 2004.

yeah but that was a 3 way race. Even if Perot took more votes from clinton, that still indicates a GOP core over 40%

and yes, in 1996 and 2000 neither party was held down to its core. so the last time the Dems were held to 40% was 1984. You think the Dems have a 45% core too? maybe. But continued GOP dominance of congress, governorships etc makes me skeptical.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Which all goes to show that the South isn't uniform.

certainly not. several different cultural regions. Low country vs hill country vs mountain. On which is overlain race (whites tendiing to be more racially focused in areas with more blacks, all other things being equal) economic differences, etc.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
It would be an interesting poll to see what the transplants such as myself think. My guess is they lean more towards conservative economic policies, but I may simply be transfereing my own beleifs where they may not exist.

However I would guess those transfering are predominantly white collar and anti-union.

They move for economic ones or for quality of life, which means that generally you're going to get a broad cross section of the place from where people are moving.

I would agree hence my assessment that of the northerners moving south it will be biased towards white collar and with white collar normally goes anti-union. Blue collar types generally do not transplant as frequently in my observations as do white collar types.

So perhaps the North gets bluer because the South gets redder via transplantation.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
yeah but that was a 3 way race. Even if Perot took more votes from clinton, that still indicates a GOP core over 40%

If the GOP got 38%, how could their "core" have been over 40% at the time? By definition, the core would be voting for them no matter what. And 4 years later, they got less than 45% of the vote as well.

and yes, in 1996 and 2000 neither party was held down to its core. so the last time the Dems were held to 40% was 1984. You think the Dems have a 45% core too? maybe. But continued GOP dominance of congress, governorships etc makes me skeptical.

No, I think the GOP and Dems probably both have ~40% core, and I think the Dems still enjoy a slightly larger core. However, the GOP has been much better at marketing itself to non-core voters in the last two elections, and it's much better at getting its core out in off-year congressional elections, which does not attract non-core voters nearly as mcuh.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


If the GOP got 38%, how could their "core" have been over 40% at the time? By definition, the core would be voting for them no matter what. And 4 years later, they got less than 45% of the vote as well.

I would define core as the minimum vote in a (eseentially) two way race. You add enough choices, you'll pare down anything. I mean if, say, Gary Hart had been on the ballot as well as Mondale in 1984, you think Mondale would still have gotten as many votes?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
And yet nothing was implied regarding California as a whole's racism when marshal law was implemeted during the LA riots.

You're joking right? For months afterwards all they played on the news is "Are white cops racist against blacks?".

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Your right the cops were, but was California or the west coast in general tarred with being racist as you imply the entirity of the South (or even a large portion thereof) is?

[Dinner]

No, but California doesn't have centuries of tradition of being racist, now does it? The burden is on the south to show it is no longer racist and its past actions mean people are always going to be suspecious of it. Just like that pediophile he says he's through with kiddie fiddling people are going to wonder and not trust them.

This means that when racist events like what happened in New Orleans occur then it leads large numbers of people to believe the south hasn't changed as much as it claims.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No, but California doesn't have centuries of tradition of being racist, now does it? .

youre kidding me, right?

Can you say asian exclusion?

Can you say native americans exterminated?

[Dinner]

The Asian exclusion was a federal government policy not a state policy. Same with the treatment of the natives.

[The diplomat]

My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.

This quote from Hillary says it all. A lot of the Dems don't care about competence or qualifications, they just want a judge that will uphold the policies they believe in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Asian exclusion was a federal government policy not a state policy. Same with the treatment of the natives.

You are just being willfully blind now, aren't you?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re the next election:

I'm very much inclined to think that the Dems cannot win with a Senator at the top of the ticket. Kerry showed us why: any such figure will be unable to run against GOP misgovernance during the Bush years, becasue they probably voted for some of it. Beyond that, Governor's can point to the record of their state's accomplishments as their own, whereas Senators have nothing like that.

It should be a governor. That means it'll be a dark horse, since there are no Dem governors with national name recognition -- but that's not a bad thing. The last dark horse Dem governor to win the nomination, as you may recall, was this guy named Clinton; the Dems could do a lot worse.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You are just being willfully blind now, aren't you?

The Asian exclusion act blocked immigration from Asian countries and was a Federal policy just like the treatment of native Americans. Most of the Natives in this state were dealt with or rounded up and put into missions by the Spanish centuries before the state government existed so I don't see how we can blame the state government for that.

I see that as being factual and not willfully blind.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No, but California doesn't have centuries of tradition of being racist, now does it?

California legislated racial catagories. You were either white, yellow or black. Mexicans were yellow and Indians were black, by law. After the U.S. took over California, the Hispanic majority was disenfranchised by force and systematically robbed without recourse to the law. Remember the Zuit Suit riots? Most of the Indians that survived Spanish colonialism were exterminated by American settlers, not the Feds. The Asian Exclusion Act, while a Federal law, was enacted at the behest of California.

California has a very racist history. Just cuz you didn't have Jim Crow doesn't mean you weren't among the very worst.