2020 Dem candidate

[jwlcosu]

Everyone knows that Booker isn?t really fucking Rosario Dawson because Booker is really gay.

If he just comes out, being both black and gay, he will have a leg up over mayor Pete.

Agree. And Harris can't be counted out altogether because she's whatever she is and a chick.

 

[Spartanmack]

Let the identity politics roll. I love it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/13/cory-booker-pete-buttigieg-2020-1317660

Maybe Booker shouldn't have staged that photo opp where he pretended to rescue his neighbor from a burning building or made a fool of himself grandstanding in the senate on nonsense like the Kavanagh garbage or whatever it was he was pounding his fist over in a hearing. Or, if he just wants to his voice to dominate based on the left's hierarchy of virtue, he should just come out as a trans gay black woman who identifies as a half Hispanic, half Asian preteen boy that thinks he's an elderly white woman.

 

[jwlcosu]

Maybe Booker shouldn't have staged that photo opp where he pretended to rescue his neighbor from a burning building or made a fool of himself grandstanding in the senate on nonsense like the Kavanagh garbage or whatever it was he was pounding his fist over in a hearing. Or, if he just wants to his voice to dominate based on the left's hierarchy of virtue, he should just come out as a trans gay black woman who identifies as a half Hispanic, half Asian preteen boy that thinks he's an elderly white woman.

Spartacus is a piece of work. Do you know the story of his imaginary friend, T-Bone?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/cory-bookers-imaginary-friend-eliana-johnson/

 

[Spartanmack]

Spartacus is a piece of work. Do you know the story of his imaginary friend, T-Bone?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/cory-bookers-imaginary-friend-eliana-johnson/

yeah, I've often wondered if he got the name T-Bone from the great Robert Townsend movie "The Hollywood Shuffle."

 

[Michchamp]

there's only one candidate - from either party - who doesn't play identity politics.

same one is also the only one who doesn't take corporate cash...

the latter part is more significant.

 

[Spartanmack]

that's not true, identity politics is basically a monopoly of the Dems. Even if it were true that only 1 candidate didn't play that game (again, it's not) that one candidate happens to be a complete and total loon bag who pushes failed policies and also used his office to pressure a bank to make loans for a college that his wife bankrupted then took a fat golden parachute from before it closed it's doors due to the financial ruin she brought upon it.


Edit: his second wife bankrupted the college after he used his position to pressure a bank to make loans based on false information she provided to the bank. his first wife left him after she realized (too late) what a lazy lay about he was after he moved her into a shed w/ a dirt floor because he couldn't hold a job.

 

[sggatecl]

that's not true, identity politics is basically a monopoly of the Dems..

I used to agree with you until the arrival of Trump and the new GOP. I don't know if things changed or they just became much more visible with his arrival. I just know that I hate it.

 

[tomdalton22]

I used to agree with you until the arrival of Trump and the new GOP. I don't know if things changed or they just became much more visible with his arrival. I just know that I hate it.

did they do one for black people and Obama? My guess is it would look very similar

 

[sggatecl]

did they do one for black people and Obama? My guess is it would look very similar

I'm sure it would. I have no doubt.

 

[Spartanmack]

did they do one for black people and Obama? My guess is it would look very similar

the more relevant question is how this looks for other candidates in either party for voters from the candidates same racial demographic. but even thats not particularly useful. unless I'm reading this wrong, this graph says next to nothing about how significant the white supremacist vote is. it just says the more important race is the more likely youre going to support a candidate of your race - in this case its white people and Trump. Thats not exactly shocking. it doesnt disclose that probably >95% of the voters are on the far left part of the horizontal axis and those to the right of the .5 mark are an insignificant portion of the electorate.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm sure it would. I have no doubt.

I?m not so sure, and I also think it doesn?t matter.

Blacks have voted overwhelmingly-monolithicly-for Democrats since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Obama being black didn?t really give him much more of an edge in the black vote than any other Democrat.

Since we?re into charts, here is another one.

 

[Spartanmack]

I?m not so sure, and I also think it doesn?t matter.

Blacks have voted overwhelmingly-monolithicly-for Democrats since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Obama being black didn?t really give him much more of an edge in the black vote than any other Democrat.

Since we?re into charts, here is another one.

the black vote switched in the 30s, way before the civil rights act of 1964.

 

[tinselwolverine]

the black vote switched in the 30s, way before the civil rights act of 1964.

Yes, of course I am aware of that, and the text I linked to explains that.

I would not describe the percentage change that began with the New Deal as being either ?overwhelming? nor ?monolithic.?

 

[Spartanmack]

Yes, of course I am aware of that, and the text I linked to explains that.

I would not describe the percentage change that began with the New Deal as being either ?overwhelming? nor ?monolithic.?

i posted that before i read the piece. then i read the piece which indicated FDR received 70% of the black vote. maybe that's not technically "monolithic" but its pretty close and I would certainly describe it as overwhelming and it's been overwhelming ever since. from your post, one could get the impression the civil rights act was the catalyst for the switch, which many leftist say is the case. its clear form the evidence this is not the case.

The interesting thing about the increase in 1964 is that LBJ was a virulent racist who continued to use the "n" word throughout his presidency, long after signing the bill. And the bulk of the resistance for the bill came from racist southern democrats who remained democrats until their deaths. There was overwhelming support for the civil rights act among Republicans in the north and south and the south didn't become more Republican until much later, "coincidentally" when it also became less racist, yet Democrats continue to enjoy overwhelming support from black voters. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[tinselwolverine]

i posted that before i read the piece. then i read the piece which indicated FDR received 70% of the black vote. maybe that's not technically "monolithic" but its pretty close and I would certainly describe it as overwhelming. from your post, one could get the impression the civil rights act was the catalyst for the switch, which many leftist say is the case. its clear form the evidence this is not the case.

I was 90% being a smart ass in my response and it?s a good thing that you added the detail of the history.

My point was, given recent history, Obama being black probably didn?t have to be that high on the list of priorities for black people to vote for him.

Also I would say there is a significant gap between 70% and almost always over 90%.

 

[tinselwolverine]

The interesting thing about the increase in 1964 is that LBJ was a virulent racist who continued to use the "n" word throughout his presidency, long after signing the bill. And the bulk of the resistance for the bill came from racist southern democrats who remained democrats until their deaths. There was overwhelming support for the civil rights act among Republicans in the north and south and the south didn't become more Republican until much later, "coincidentally" when it also became less racist, yet Democrats continue to enjoy overwhelming support from black voters. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

You posted this paragraph while I was responding to your first paragraph.

This is pretty good historic information for those who aren?t aware of it.

Notably Prescott Bush, the father and the grandfather of two presidents, voted for the Civil Rights Act.

In the Clinton-Bush debate, Clinton made a note of this-although he did it in the context of a criticism of his opponent, the president.

 

[Spartanmack]

I was 90% being a smart ass in my response and it?s a good thing that you added the detail of the history.

My point was, given recent history, Obama being black probably didn?t have to be that high on the list of priorities for black people to vote for him.

Also I would say there is a significant gap between 70% and almost always over 90%.

yeah, I agree there is a difference which is why I called it overwhelming and not necessarily "monolithic." And according to your link, it's actually only been almost always over 90 since 2000. between 64 and 2000 it was in mid 80s - still a monlith in my view.

 

[Spartanmack]

Uh oh, Bernie! Seems even the most naive demographic may be waking up to your nonsense. can it be the grass roots arent so strong?


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/443547-poll-sanders-support-among-young-voters-drops-sharply

 

[tinselwolverine]

yeah, I agree there is a difference which is why I called it overwhelming and not necessarily "monolithic." And according to your link, it's actually only been almost always over 90 since 2000. between 64 and 2000 it was in mid 80s - still a monlith in my view.

OK.

Nixon had had 32% of the black vote in 1960, and got a pass on having take a position on the Civil Rights Act, so maybe a lot of people who voted for him in 1960 wanted him for president in 1968, and then again in ?72.

Ford had voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is known to have supported anti-discrimination legislation throughout his career.

So I guess it?s not that surprising that they did a little better than the other Republican candidates since 1964.

 

[Spartanmack]

OK.

Nixon had had 32% of the black vote in 1960, and got a pass on having take a position on the Civil Rights Act, so maybe a lot of people who voted for him in 1960 wanted him for president in 1968, and then again in ?72.

Ford had voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is known to have supported anti-discrimination legislation throughout his career.

So I guess it?s not that surprising that they did a little better than the other Republican candidates since 1964.

Maybe since Ford was actually in a position to vote for it while other Republican candidates since him weren't, that helped him - that's certainly possible but other than the spike in '64, I think the lasting and increasing support has less to do with the CR Act (I can't think of any Republican candidates since 1964 that were against it) and more to do with a bill of goods sold to black voters through a combination of the ever expanding social welfare system that began in the 30s, class warfare and identity politics strategies of the Dems.