To avoid getting in the way of the bizarro forced therapy session in the other thread, I'll post this here:

quote:

About 90 percent of black voters vote Democratic.

why is that?

Because they've come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party represents their interests better.

Why do 10%-15% of them vote Republican?

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
Because they've come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party represents their interests better.

Or like 95% of all voters, myself included (sometimes) they've come to the conclusion, a long time ago, that "the other party" does not represent their interests at all.

That may be even closer to the truth.

quote:

"the other party"

Unless you're really wealthy and/or own a business (preferably related to oil), I have no idea how they represent anybody's interests.

If I were a black leader, and I knew a disproportionate percentage of my race was still trying to fight their way out of poverty... and I knew many Republicans favor supply side economic policies that widen the gap between haves and have nots... policies that trumpet results that never reach the lower middle class and working poor, let alone the truly poor and disenfranchised?

Uh, why would I encourage the people I influence to vote Republican?

If you're one of those people or someone who cares about them, you simply can't.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:

quote:

"the other party"

Unless you're really wealthy and/or own a business (preferably related to oil), I have no idea how they represent anybody's interests.

I think they represent a good deal of many peoples interests, shep. It's just the bunch who are sailing under that flag currently that are making it look so grim (at least in the white house).

If I were a black leader, I'd be trying to convince the folks in my part of town to leave the Democratic party.

It hasn't done a thing for em. Why continue to ignore the truth?

Eight years of the "first black president" - the poor were still poor, the scandals were many, the rich still got richer, the poor still got poorer, the military funding was cut back and schools still had funding problems, and blacks were generally not benefitting from 8 Dem (read "damn") years of the Clintons.

quote:

and blacks were generally not benefitting from 8 Dem (read "damn") years of the Clintons.

That's actually the only "sound bite" where I agree with Rev. Wright.

Of course, Cal's incorrect. The black poor saw their numbers decrease dramatically during the Clinton years. These are the percentage of black Americans below the poverty level during Clinton's term:

2001 22.7
2000 22.5
1999 23.6
1998 26.1
1997 26.5
1996 28.4
1995 29.3
1994 30.6
1993 33.1

From 33.1 percent to 22.7 percent, an all-time low.

If you'd like the rest of the numbers, you can see them for yourself here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Its easy Tupa, Its called the priciples of social polarization of modern urban america. The democrats largely recognize this problem and studies on how to combat it thru federal/state level policies. Republicans generally dont care because their core theories on limited government and "conservative/selective business first" spending allocation puts social programs on the backburner or cut.

the black and hispanic populations make up most of the massive majority in urban areas and other poorer districts in america left over from pre civil rights time. That time frame is less than 1 generation ago so there fore a vast majority of the population is still centered around those areas.

Most average "white" voters either do not care or are not educated on social polarization principles so therefore attribute minority poverty problems to other more mundane reasons that may or may not apply. The democratic party in general has always put(supposably) social programs for the relief and pro development of urban areas toward the forefront of their policiies.

social polarization is covered in most college level entry level sociology courses and definately taught in black culture courses. Hell I remember that even being covered in one of my early gec economics courses and than later covered under macro economics. The economics of the polarity of job(non minimum wage) availabilty versus the distance from urban living is constantly examined.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
Because they've come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party represents their interests better.

I assume that to be true of all voters. Which interests are they voting on?

Does dark skin really align your interests so well that the interests of 90% of people identified as "black" are represented by the same party?

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
I have no idea.

We realize that.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by shepwrite:
I have no idea.
We realize that.

Hmmm... kind of revelatory, don't you think?

Clearly someone of my intellect (or yours or Heck's or Legacy's, etc.) wouldn't be confused by this discussion, and I was participating in good faith.

So whatever point you were trying to make... you made a different one. Oops.

If anybody's lost here, it's Cal, as usual, right? But you wouldn't want to tweak Cal's nipples because even though he's the board laughingstock and the only one with "no idea," he shares your ideology.

You can't feel good about that, man. You just shed light on your intense partisanship. You'll side with any drooling moron as long as he's Right Wing.

Short memory, eh Shep? I've distanced myself from Cal quite explicitly more than once and in more than one discussion that included you. Occasionally (I cant remember a time, but I'm sure it has happened), I will defend one of his arguments if I agree with it. But I didnt realize that I needed to blast every post I disagreed with to prove I wont side with "any drooling moron".

Also, just so you can follow along, feel free to insert nipple references, condescending sarcasm (I try, but I'm not sure I can fit as much into my posts as you would like), and general confusion wherever you see fit.

My bad. I thought you did one of those gay, out-of-context cute-and-pastes like, "I don't know," and then wrote, "There's a surprise!"

Something like that. Guess it was somebody else. Couldn't have been you, because when you got tweaked back, you acted kind of huffy.

(C'mon, man. You showed your colors.)

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
My bad. I thought you did one of those gay, out-of-context cute-and-pastes like, "I don't know," and then wrote, "There's a surprise!"

Something like that. Guess it was somebody else. Couldn't have been you, because when you got tweaked back, you acted kind of huffy.

(C'mon, man. You showed your colors.)

My colors? Yes, my colors are that I dont think you understand most of the political topics you discuss on this board. I also think your grasp of economics is elementary - or at least that your discussion of it on this board is. What that has to do with Cal, I dont know.

If my correcting you in a less than cordial tone was huffy, then yes, tweaking tends to do that to me I guess.

Also, great use of the word "gay". If I could remember where to search for it I would cut and paste your explosion when someone on Cal's side of the aisle used it similarly.

I've never exploded on anyone for use of "gay" or "retarded" because I think we all know we don't really mean homosexual or mentally impaired. I'm not that huffy about that stuff.

I've complimented both you and Heck for having such a deep understanding of economic politics... so I didn't fully understand the unmotivated jab, especially here where the topic isn't deep-dish economics anyway.

I think it was transparent. If you're denying that, have at it.