Politics and the South

Politics and the South (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> Politics and the South (11/11/2008 8:40:36 PM)
Earlier I asked why the South block votes Republican. Today the NYT had an article about Souther voting. In pertinent part it said, Southern counties that voted more heavily Republican this year than in 2004 tended to be poorer, less educated and whiter, a statistical analysis by The New York Times shows. Mr. Obama won in only 44 counties in the Appalachian belt, a stretch of 410 counties that runs from New York to Mississippi. Many of those counties, rural and isolated, have been less exposed to the diversity, educational achievement and economic progress experienced by more prosperous areas. As for the last election a political scientist said of Southerners refusing to vote for Obama,' “There’s no other explanation than race,” he said.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 8:53:04 PM)
quote: As for the last election a political scientist said of Southerners refusing to vote for Obama,' "Political science" is a contradiction in terms. There are several explanations, just none that fit the bigotry of the speaker: His stance on abortion His casual disregard for promises made His casual disregard for the Constitution His inability to make decisions under pressure His insistence on socialist programs designed to redistribute wealth and undermine individual industry and responsibility His basic lack of anything resembling character or principle. Shocking as it may seem to Democrats, a good many folk even in the lowly South honestly disapprove of the man's politics as well as his political associations.

OneMoreWaste -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:10:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: As for the last election a political scientist said of Southerners refusing to vote for Obama,' "Political science" is a contradiction in terms. Back off, man- I'm a scientist! [8D] Don't forget- Southerners like our guns. Chicago-area Democrats set off big-ass warning bells for anyone that values the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. But then, as a Southerner who's voted Libertarian in every election since he turned 18, and (surprise surprise) voted LP again this year, I'm obviously just a big fat racist who doesn't care about the issues [8\|]

Joenextdoor -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:15:47 PM)
Well put celticlord. I guess these political science types don't understand that its kind of hard for a person to cast a vote for someone who stands on the opposite side of every issue that he values, or when a person cannot vote for someone they do not trust.

MadRabbit -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:17:52 PM)
Actually, I find that in the South the majority of people I meet who vote Republican are small business owners and independent contractors and the people who vote Democrat are the one's who really have no fucking clue as to what it takes to be an entrepreneur. And not a single one of those people cast a vote, because of race, but rather because they had no confidence in Obama as far as the business/economic side of things. It would be really nice to read something somewhat enlightening then something built on prejudice and stereotype.

Joenextdoor -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:24:21 PM)
Well first off, we should think about where this article appeared. According to the initial post here, it says New York Times. Of course they want to somehow tie people who voted for McCain as somehow being racist. They are already starting the campaign to shame them to vote for Obama in 2012. I am a proud southerner, self-employed, and I vote red. I have worked hard for everything I have, and I do not want government handouts of any kind. I live by the belief that if you want to eat, you work. I think the argument could be made that poor urban voters vote Democrat because they feel that party is the one who will give them the most free stuff out of the treasury. So the Times guy wants to call southerners racist, why wouldn't he call the others freeloaders?

BamaD -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:27:59 PM)
It is strange that any white person, particularly in the south who voted for someone other than Obama is a racist while black people who voted for him are not, even when they say it was because he is black

MadRabbit -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:31:43 PM)
I wonder if these guys have ever lived in the South, because that's certainly not the South I love in.

Cagey18 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:33:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor Well first off, we should think about where this article appeared. According to the initial post here, it says New York Times. Of course they want to somehow tie people who voted for McCain as somehow being racist. <snip> So the Times guy wants to call southerners racist, Ah, so you didn't bother to read the article, or you'd know that (a) "the Times guy" didn't say that about McCain voters or (b) about Southerners, and (c) neither did the political analyst being quoted above. No wonder you voted for McCain. You don't bother to acquaint yourself with the facts.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:35:34 PM)
quote: I think the argument could be made that poor urban voters vote Democrat because they feel that party is the one who will give them the most free stuff out of the treasury. If we employ "political science", there could be no other explanation.

Naga -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:35:45 PM)
You might want to check on the author's credentials. Adam Nossiter has no background in political science and I can't find any mention of his education in any of his biographical resources. Seems like another person trying to justify their personal prejudices under the cloak of "science."

slvemike4u -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:37:58 PM)
And you apparently want to tie Obama voters to freeholders looking for a handout.Could you support that assumption with anything other than your own bias.Perhaps some statistical data ,the writer of the Times article offered statistical data to support his theory's,what do you offer ,other than your own conviction that you are right,therefore everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:39:55 PM)
quote: You don't bother to acquaint yourself with the facts. Fact: A reporter for the New York Times (all the Democratic news that's marginally fit to print) quoted a "political scientist" as saying that the only explanation for voting patterns in the counties Dear Leader did not win was race. It is vile, repugnant, disgusting propaganda. This very correct-thinking American rejects it and all such slanders categorically.

Joenextdoor -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:40:04 PM)
The only thing ther NYT is good for is lining bird cages. No, I didn't read it, but did read the last thing in the post, which says "There's no other explanation than race." What other point could the article have? I voted for McCain because of the content of his character. I vote red anyway, but have made exceptions when the candidate lacked said content. Beyond that, you have no idea what facts I acquaint myself with. It certainly isn't anything printed by the NYT.

Joenextdoor -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:43:29 PM)
My implication is, and only is, that if he writes an article tying GOP support to racism, then why not also write that strong support from poor urban types could be only explained as a desire to suckle the government teat? You draw your own conclusions, but I am tired of people thinking that just because we are southerners, we are somehow backwards, lack intelligence, or are racist.

MissSCD -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:46:53 PM)
*Did someone say Southern politics?* Oh man. Here it goes. Thanks to the OP for figuring out my delima that I was not totally crazy down here. What the article did not mention about the South going republican is the fact that we are the "Bible Belt". The church runs things. They run it their way, and do not want to change anything. For example, The Baptist church I belonged to all my life allowed women to participate in nothing. Women could not even collect the offerng. They are a mega/multi monopoly now. I changed to a small church. *The Bible belt is a strong part of Southern politics. Most of them are upper middle class.* *I voted for President Elect Obama because he was the best one for the job.* *Regards. MissSCD* quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Earlier I asked why the South block votes Republican. Today the NYT had an article about Souther voting. In pertinent part it said, Southern counties that voted more heavily Republican this year than in 2004 tended to be poorer, less educated and whiter, a statistical analysis by The New York Times shows. Mr. Obama won in only 44 counties in the Appalachian belt, a stretch of 410 counties that runs from New York to Mississippi. Many of those counties, rural and isolated, have been less exposed to the diversity, educational achievement and economic progress experienced by more prosperous areas. As for the last election a political scientist said of Southerners refusing to vote for Obama,' “There’s no other explanation than race,” he said.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:46:55 PM)
quote: but I am tired of people thinking that just because we are southerners, we are somehow backwards, lack intelligence, or are racist. All you have to do is stand and pledge allegiance to Dear Leader and you will be magically transformed into someone who is enlightened, intelligent, and color blind.

Naga -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:50:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And you apparently want to tie Obama voters to freeholders looking for a handout.Could you support that assumption with anything other than your own bias.Perhaps some statistical data ,the writer of the Times article offered statistical data to support his theory's,what do you offer ,other than your own conviction that you are right,therefore everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. The writer was unable to demonstrate any causality for the presented statistics (which by the way, were not his). You can make statistics say anything you want. Which is why anyone with any education in the area always looks to demonstrate causality when presenting statistics. Until you can do that, you don't have a case and what you have is a theory, unsupported by facts.

Cagey18 -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:50:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joenextdoor No, I didn't read it, but did read the last thing in the post, which says "There's no other explanation than race." And therein lies your problem. You made the assumption (false, as it turns out) that the snippet above accurately represents the article. And then made silly conclusions (three, in fact) based on that false assumption. So actually I'm aware that you didn't acquaint yourself with what the political analyst said. But you're naive enough to draw conclusions based on what you think he said. Reminiscent of lots of McCain voters I know.

TheHeretic -> RE: Politics and the South (11/11/2008 9:51:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And you apparently want to tie Obama voters to freeholders looking for a handout.Could you support that assumption with anything other than your own bias. How about his own words, Mike? Google up his answer at Saddleback to the question of what he had been wrong about in his career. There was once a time when the The New York Times mattered. Not anymore.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625