Ok, that's clever.

Thank you!

With all the hand-wringing over Obama, it's a question that needs asking. My bet says no way in hell in my lifetime.

 

Discuss ...

 

Damn, shoulda added a poll. Can a mod help?

Well, he was elected to two terms without the help of you voting for him.............

 

Can I have that defined please?

 

A person of color who is as educated and qualified as Obama. They should have every opportunity to run for either party.

I don't know if he will be black but here's my theory. We've grown a population up to rely on government assistance. They are programmed to vote for their meal ticket every 4 years' date=' and I don't think it will matter the skin tone, as long as it keeps the checks in the mail and the plastic food card loaded. The worst thing a candidate could do if he wants elected is to make "work for what you get" his platform.[/quote']

 

Boy is this sad but so true. Huck would never stand a chance. Once you start drinking the govt nipple it taste good.

Maybe she can be the next president. She's my favorite.

You couldn't be more wrong on that one. No one said that the vast majority of dems are lazy, uneducated bums living off the system. But if you have followed the last 2 elections, I think you would have to agree that "system" votes are significant. Significant enough, IMO, to make a difference in a close election.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you said that or that's what the thread implied. However, I constantly hear it mentioned, and it's implied pretty regularly. Think about this though.....the traditional southern states are some of the poorest states in the nation, but yet vote overwhelmingly Republican. That means one of two things.....either the vast majority of the poor don't vote in those states, or the poor in these states are decidedly conservative. So yes, you can argue that the poor will typically vote democrat (when and if they vote), but on the other hand, those making over 200k will similarly vote republican. If the poor had that much influence and swung elections that dramatically, then you'd never have a republican president....and 4 of the last 8 presidents have been republican. And the only close election in the last 40 years was won by a Republican (Bush in 2000).

Another question is will we have another black president before we have a woman or a Hispanic president?

 

Yes and yes.

I didn't mean to imply that you said that or that's what the thread implied. However, I constantly hear it mentioned, and it's implied pretty regularly. Think about this though.....the traditional southern states are some of the poorest states in the nation, but yet vote overwhelmingly Republican. That means one of two things.....either the vast majority of the poor don't vote in those states, or the poor in these states are decidedly conservative. So yes, you can argue that the poor will typically vote democrat (when and if they vote), but on the other hand, those making over 200k will similarly vote republican. If the poor had that much influence and swung elections that dramatically, then you'd never have a republican president....and 4 of the last 8 presidents have been republican. And the only close election in the last 40 years was won by a Republican (Bush in 2000).

It's not that I don't understand the logic, because I agree with that. However, I don't think that you can discount the fact that the # of those on government assistance continues to rise. And the issue is that # many years ago included the elderly. However, as the dynamic changes within those on government assistance, I think you see a younger demographic of those on assistance make their way to the polls. Grandma Mildred who sits in the 3rd pew from the front every Sunday hasn't voted in a decade. And maybe my generalization is fairly vague and no I don't have a link, but as for where I work, I can guarantee you that the age group that lives just over the hill in the projects all voted. They'd be ignorant not to. And they continue to multiply and perpetuate that way of life and thrust that mindset into the next generation, who will also march to the polling places.

Edited July 18, 201313 yr by spindoc

It's not that I don't understand the logic, because I agree with that. However, I don't think that you can discount the fact that the # of those on government assistance continues to rise. And the issue is that # many years ago included the elderly. However, as the dynamic changes within those on government assistance, I think you see a younger demographic of those on assistance make their way to the polls. Grandma Mildred who sits in the 3rd pew from the front every Sunday hasn't voted in a decade. And maybe my generalization is fairly vague and no I don't have a link, but as for where I work, I can guarantee you that the age group that lives just over the hill in the projects all voted. They'd be ignorant not to. And they continue to multiply and perpetuate that way of life and thrust that mindset into the next generation, who will also march to the polling places.

 

And I don't totally disagree with you either. I do believe that those on assistance is a rising number, and we will naturally see more of those folks voting. I still don't think it's as big an influence on elections outcomes as is commonly believed, because no one ever mentions the opposite end (the percentage of rich that vote republican). I think this next election will really be telling as to which group holds more influence. I think there's a very good chance a republican gets elected, and if that happens, it will be interesting to see what happens to this argument. Would that mean those people suddenly stopped voting? I think it would mean, they really don't have that much influence. Really, politics is a game that's all about money.

Republican catch-22...... You need to be on the right to get nominated. The nominated candidate is too far right to win the general election.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

The other factor, of course, is that the country is growing less white every day, which is why we're seeing more state-by-state, GOP-led efforts to suppress the vote:

 

"Every month in the U.S., 50,000 Latinos turn 18, making the Hispanic vote an even more essential to the future of the political parties. Bill Frey, a Brookings Institute demographer, notes that the GOP’s failure to attract Latinos and other minorities cost Mitt Romney states that were once heavily Republican, such as Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and Florida. Hence, Romney lost the presidential race.

 

"The share of the minority vote, at 28 percent nationwide, will continue to grow as Hispanic millennials reach voting age, Frey said. Currently 4 million more Hispanics are eligible to vote than were in 2008, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Latinos now comprise 11 percent of the nation’s eligible voters, up from 8.2 percent in 2004 and 9.5 percent in 2008."

 

Latinos Aging Into the Electorate - NationalJournal.com

I didn't mean to imply that you said that or that's what the thread implied. However, I constantly hear it mentioned, and it's implied pretty regularly. Think about this though.....the traditional southern states are some of the poorest states in the nation, but yet vote overwhelmingly Republican. That means one of two things.....either the vast majority of the poor don't vote in those states, or the poor in these states are decidedly conservative. So yes, you can argue that the poor will typically vote democrat (when and if they vote), but on the other hand, those making over 200k will similarly vote republican. If the poor had that much influence and swung elections that dramatically, then you'd never have a republican president....and 4 of the last 8 presidents have been republican. And the only close election in the last 40 years was won by a Republican (Bush in 2000).

 

Or, option 3 like here in KY, vote predominately Dem/Lib locally/state, Rep/Con nationally.

And I don't totally disagree with you either. I do believe that those on assistance is a rising number, and we will naturally see more of those folks voting. I still don't think it's as big an influence on elections outcomes as is commonly believed, because no one ever mentions the opposite end (the percentage of rich that vote republican). I think this next election will really be telling as to which group holds more influence. I think there's a very good chance a republican gets elected, and if that happens, it will be interesting to see what happens to this argument. Would that mean those people suddenly stopped voting? I think it would mean, they really don't have that much influence. Really, politics is a game that's all about money.

I don't think that this or any election recently has had the old standby R vs. D demographic change that much. Those who you identify as rich still vote, always have, and always will. Those who pull a straight D ticket because their daddy did, and his daddy did, and so on always have and still vote, always have and always will. My point is that those system voters who rely on the aid provided them will continue to grow. It's a vicious cycle. As the evangelical vote declines, the government aid vote seems to increase. I don't know where you can find a real number of voters who are on govt aid, I'm sure it's out there somewhere, possibly not at our fingertips by design, but I think you vastly underestimate it. I think it was evident that demographic was targeted election before last and discussed ad nauseum after the fact.

How is a repub ever gonna win when one or the first things out of their mouth is border control? The last few repubs dropped the ball.

Another question is will we have another black president before we have a woman or a Hispanic president?

 

I think a Latino President will come first, but yes, we will most certainly have another black President.

I think a Latino President will come first, but yes, we will most certainly have another black President.

 

Agreed. We'd have a Latino President way before a woman, IMO.