Seriously, GOP? Really?

[giblets]

I'd certainly never expect a Mormon to vote for Ron Paul. The typical Mormon would rather condemn sodomy than decriminalize dope. They're both Republicans, but they come from different philosophical camps.

Yeah a lot of Republicans are in the "I hate freedom" philosophical camp.

[Felch]

How is the black vote not an expression of personal priorities and shared opinions?

There's a shared experience, but there's not a shared system of beliefs. Blacks can be capitalist, progressive, anarcho-socialist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever. It's surprising that they vote so consistently as a racial bloc. In contrast, Latinos have a shared experience, one that right now involves pretty blatant racism coming out of the Republican party. But they are split roughly 60/40 in favor of the Democrats, rather than 90/10. Source. It appears that Latinos tend to formulate their own political opinions, instead of just following a herd.

[Barnabas]

Latinos are not of one race, and not of the same ethnicty.
Miami Cubans are to a large degree mainly Spanish (as in Spaniard) and the high class of Cuba that emmigrated when Castro took power, they are very different from Mexican and Central American immigrants who tend to be poor, low class, and quite amerindian. And Dominicans and Puertoricans are different too, Cubans and Puortoricans are legal immigrants and don't care States getting tough on illegal immigration.

[Zevico]

While Massachusetts had abolished slavery at the time the Constitution was drafted

This is my point. From a legal perspective the Constitution did not abolish or legalise slavery and it certainly did not grant or deny black persons the right to vote. It was the lawless Supreme Court that decided to deny black persons the right to vote in Dred Scott. No we have open support for a lawless Supreme Court among the Democrats. Is lawlessness a virtue when it is for the "correct" cause?

This time Oerdin is correct in that you've no idea what you're talking about.

In addition to the 3/5ths clause, slavery was codified in the Constitution in other places: Article I, Section 9 expressly forbade the prohibition of importing slaves until 1808. Also, you've conveniently ignored the Fugitive Slave Clause, which stated that states had to return escaped slaves to their masters in other states.

True.It did, you are right, import requirements, but those requirements were designed to assist the carrying on of slavery in the slave states rather than introduce it into Mass. per se.

Your assertion that there was a "possible civil war" over it in 1787 is nonsense. Bear in mind that at that time, the most prominent philosophical opponents of slavery were almost all slave owners themselves (Washington, Jefferson and Franklin being the most famous).

Possible and noted. I'll read about that period further. I do distinctly recall some predictions of civil war over slavery in the revolutionary era or post-revolutionary era, however; quite possibly I misattributed those predictions to society at large.

[DaShi]

Why don't you just ask Barry Rubin what to think?

[Felch]

Latinos are not of one race, and not of the same ethnicty.
Miami Cubans are to a large degree mainly Spanish (as in Spaniard) and the high class of Cuba that emmigrated when Castro took power, they are very different from Mexican and Central American immigrants who tend to be poor, low class, and quite amerindian. And Dominicans and Puertoricans are different too, Cubans and Puortoricans are legal immigrants and don't care States getting tough on illegal immigration.

That's true, but the majority of American Latinos are Mexican. Even among Mexican-Americans there's no clear racial voting bloc. Plus there's still a shared experience. White Puerto Ricans are just as likely to be treated ****ty by police as anybody else with a Spanish sounding name, even if they don't have INS concerns. Some people just don't like spics.

[rah]

Because people choose to be Mormon, it's a reflection of personal priorities and shared opinions. I expect Mormons to vote for Mormons.

Just like 80% of Catholics voted for JFK. There should be no big surprise.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This time Oerdin is correct in that you've no idea what you're talking about.

In addition to the 3/5ths clause, slavery was codified in the Constitution in other places: Article I, Section 9 expressly forbade the prohibition of importing slaves until 1808. Also, you've conveniently ignored the Fugitive Slave Clause, which stated that states had to return escaped slaves to their masters in other states.

While Massachusetts had abolished slavery at the time the Constitution was drafted, there was no wide-spread abolitionist movement in the U.S at that time nor for decades later. It wasn't until the 1830s that there arose a serious movement to end slavery. Your assertion that there was a "possible civil war" over it in 1787 is nonsense. Bear in mind that at that time, the most prominent philosophical opponents of slavery were almost all slave owners themselves (Washington, Jefferson and Franklin being the most famous).

This entire post is incorrect on a number of levels.

The tip off should have been this

This time Oerdin is correct in that you've no idea what you're talking about.

Zevico expressed that the idea of slavery was punted by the founders. In this he is correct. However to indicate that the issue of slavery was not of prime importance in the founding of the constitution and was not important at the time the document was being crafted is clearly incorrect.

While Massachusetts had abolished slavery at the time the Constitution was drafted, there was no wide-spread abolitionist movement in the U.S at that time nor for decades later. It wasn't until the 1830s that there arose a serious movement to end slavery.

This passage is factually incorrect. The issue of slavery was expressly addressed in the preceding convention (circa 1787) with the articles of confederation prohibiting the practice of slavery in the North west territories. It neglects that by 1804 almost all the states and territories north of the Mason Dixon had passed legislation prohibitting slavery. It neglects the concerted efforts of the Quakers of PA who were able to influence the neighboring states of Maryland and Delaware such that a majority of the slaves were freed by the time the 1830s came to pass. It neglects the concerted efforts of New York luminaries Hamilton, Burr, and John Jay who as Federalists were pushing a strong anti slavery platform. It neglects the abolitionist stances of John Adams and John Quincy Adams.

Your assertion that there was a "possible civil war" over it in 1787 is nonsense.

Of course it is nonsense. There was no nation that would have enforced a union. The more likely scenarios is if the issue of slavery had been pushed then a number of states would have chosen not to ratify the constituion and would have chosen to not be part of the United States. No war would have occurred. It was well understood that this was a very contentious issue and for whatever appetite the north had to eliminate slavery it was more important that the states band together to prevent European interference from preventing the states from their own self determination. It along with the various means of representation in the government were the big compromises of the day. In fact the underlying tones of the representational debate had much to do with the power of the various states and as a subcontext the impact that could have on the choice of slave or free.

Bear in mind that at that time, the most prominent philosophical opponents of slavery were almost all slave owners themselves (Washington, Jefferson and Franklin being the most famous).

This is perhaps the most blatent of the errors. Washington while presiding over the constitutional convention for all intents and purposes was silent on the issues of the day. Washington always was revered as a legendary figure, soldier, and statesman (above the fray as it were) as a philosophical orator and spokesman not so much.

Jefferson wasn't even at the constitutional convention as he was Ambassador to France at the time. Whatever role he had in development of the constitution was merely letters of encouragement at best. Likewise any discussion he may have had regarding slavery at the time.

Franklin was so beset with health issues he for all intents and purposes didn't even participate. His role was like Washingtons a legendary figure provided as a prop to ensure that people got along. Regardless not a slave owner in any event.

Meanwhile the real philosophical crafters of the constitution Hamilton, Jay, and Madison all were strongly opposed to slavery and while Madison was a slave holder, the other two most definitely were not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ogie

I wonder why people don't realize that slavery was an issue during the Constitution issue. Not as strong as later, perhaps, but enough that the states of Georgia and the Carolinas were threatening to leave the union if slavery was unduly burdened.

[notyoueither]

Turns out wanting to leave a country as powerful and wealthy as the UK was a stupid idea, who would have guessed...

Many Scots?

[EPW]

WTF Santorum?!

How the hell...?

[giblets]

Spoiler:

Demographics

Harry J. Enten, writing for The Guardian, has found a strong correlation between the number of evangelical voters in the state and the share of Mr. Romney’s vote. That could be problematic for Mr. Romney in Missouri and Minnesota, where the share of evangelicals should be relatively high.

Correlation is not necessarily causation, and conclusions based on just five data points can sometimes prove to be specious. In this case, however, there is evidence that the religious orientation of voters has a direct rather than incidental relationship with the outcome of the vote. According to exit polling in the first five states, Mr. Romney has won an average of 30 percent of the vote among voters who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, versus 45 percent among those who do not. Conversely, Mr. Santorum has won 22 percent of the vote among evangelicals, versus just 9 percent among other voters.

Another strong relationship so far is that Mr. Romney has performed well among wealthier voters, while having mixed results among voters with lower incomes.

We can estimate the income status of each state by looking at the share of John McCain voters whose households made $50,000 or less in 2008, according to that year’s exit polls.

Missouri, by this measure, is the most working-class state to vote so far. In 2008, 39 percent of Mr. McCain’s voters made $50,000 or less, well above Mr. McCain’s national average of 32 percent. Colorado, conversely, is a wealthy state; just 23 percent of Mr. McCain’s voters made less than the $50,000 threshold in 2008.

Minnesota is something of a mixed bag. Although the state has above-average incomes overall, that is not necessarily true among Republican voters; about one-third of Mr. McCain’s voters made less than $50,000 in 2008, close to the national average.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/the-high-stakes-in-minnesota-colorado-and-missouri/

[Imran Siddiqui]

WTF Santorum?!

How the hell...?

He's back to being the not-Romney!

[Dinner]

WTF is right. It looks like Santorum won all three states while Gingrich is at or near the bottom in all three. Back to being the not Romney is right.

[Uncle Sparky]

No-one has been attacking Santorum lately, therefore he is currently the least objectionable. Remember, the Republicans are trying to find the least repugnant. Santorum is less repulsive than Newt or Romney.