We've(blacks) been saying that for over 4 years now.

 

So why is that the case?

Yes. Regardless of what race the candidateh is. I just wanted to point that out, because I could not count how many people think "Oh the blacks are just voting for Obama because he is also black." No, they are voting for him because he's a Dem. Now they probably came out in higher numbers, like I stated before, but Obama running did not change their voting patterns.

 

Can you give me a number of black voters in past elections? I would be curious what the increase has been in the past two elections. If there was a huge increase in turnout then he absolutely did change their voting patterns.

I stand correct. So blacks vote for democrats no matter what. It that a fair statement?

 

I wouldn't say no matter what..I guess if there were a narrow minded candidate that didn't respect others that were different from them because of gender, race, or social class, etc.....Then no, I would say, the vote would not be that high for a democrat candidate. I love the notion that the GOP thinks that minorities vote for democrats just for that reason. As if, minorities aren't intelligent enough to look at policies and do what's best for them.

So why is that the case?

 

Ask Barry Goldwater.

I heard Rudy Guiliani talking about what Republicans need to do going forward in order to get in touch with the changing demographics in our country and I have to say it made sense. Republicans can be fiscally conservative and conservative in their views towards defense (i.e. spend $$ on the military) but when it comes to social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, they need to be Libertarian. If the Republican battle cry is truly less government intrusion on the federal level, then they need to let states decide these issues. A candidate can endorse that their view of marriage is between a man and a woman and that their pro-life while at the same time endorsing that each of these social issues is up to the electorate of individual states. If Republicans can adopt this approach as their platform, they can possibly garner enough votes from those demographic groups that they currently alienate on a large scale. You can't win on hard line stances with social issues while at the same time saying we need limited government!

 

I'm not point fingers just simply pointing out that the country has changed. Everyone can say it was this or that but the bottomline is Romney had no chance to win regardless of his stance on issues.

 

I disagree. Romney definitely had a chance. But he never took the opportunity or capitalized on the chance with people like me. I, for instance, feel that although I fully support AHCA, it is only the beginning. There's tons of room for improvement. Romney's vow to repeal it in its entirety was a deal breaker for me. And many, many people I know who voted for Obama did so for that reason. There was no indication to us that there was anything better in the pipeline, and we felt repealing it would be an enormous backward step after decades of stagnation on the issue. It was just too important to risk.

 

Couple that with no clear economic policy message, I chose to give Obama 4 more years and not risk a backward slide.

Ask Barry Goldwater.

 

Or Lee Atwater.

I stand corrected. So blacks vote for democrats no matter what. It that a fair statement?

 

It has been a fair statement since the 60s. Nothing new.

I disagree. Romney definitely had a chance.

 

Romney was an awful candidate. I'm surprised it was as close as it was. I'm surprised (sort of) people are so shocked by what was a fairly predictable election.

And Obama has went back and forth on several issues. I think it comes with the territory

 

Compromise is not a bad word. It's needed in some instances. However, you can't "etch-a-sketch" your beliefs.

We've(blacks) been saying that for over 40 years now.

 

 

Fixed it for you, youngster.

I'm not point fingers just simply pointing out that the country has changed. Everyone can say it was this or that but the bottomline is Romney had no chance to win regardless of his stance on issues.

 

100% incorrect. This election was set up for him to win IF he was a moderate. He used to be. He wasn't in the campaign. He lost.

Romney was an awful candidate. I'm surprised it was as close as it was. I'm surprised (sort of) people are so shocked by what was a fairly predictable election.

 

:thumb:

 

100% incorrect. This election was set up for him to win IF he was a moderate. He used to be. He wasn't in the campaign. He lost.

 

I don't think it was about Romney needing to be more moderate. I just think he lacked Obama's charisma & personality.

:thumb:

 

 

 

I don't think it was about Romney needing to be more moderate. I just think he lacked Obama's charisma & personality.

 

Completely disagree. Gore almost won in 2000 and had zero personality.

 

IMO you cannot win being 100% conservative and trying to placate the far side of the party. A moderate R would have won IMO.

Completely disagree. Gore almost won in 2000 and had zero personality.

 

IMO you cannot win being 100% conservative and trying to placate the far side of the party. A moderate R would have won IMO.

 

We'll just have to disagree then. Gore & Kerry both lost (narrowly) because they had zero personality. Give the Gore & Kerry platforms a candidate with Obama's personality & they both win. Give the Romney platform a candidate with Christie's personality & he wins.