November 7, 2012

Romney's high-priced turnout experts turn out to be not so expert

From the Boston Globe:
A drop in voter turnout in Tuesday’s election didn’t keep President Barack Obama from winning a second term. 
Preliminary figures suggest fewer people voted this year than four years ago, when voters shattered turnout records as they elected Obama to his first term. 

By the way, turnout was huge in 2004, with white people enthusiastically going to the polls. The 2008 turnout, in contrast, was vast among nonwhites, with white turnout tepid. But 2012 seems down from both the last two elections, although it's still early in counting every last vote process, so this current perception shouldn't be taken as carved in granite.
In most states, the numbers were even lower than in 2004, said Curtis Gans, director of American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate. Every state but Iowa is showing a smaller turnout than in 2008, Gans said. Still, the full picture may not be known for weeks because much of the counting takes place after Election Day. 
‘‘This was a major plunge in turnout nationally,’’ said Gans, who estimated about 126 million Americans voted, for an overall turnout rate of about 57.5 percent. 
In Arizona, almost 19 percent fewer people cast ballots than in 2008. In Maryland, where voters approved a ballot measure allowing gay marriage, turnout in the presidential race was running more than 7 percentage points behind 2008. Alaska saw a drop-off of nearly 25 percent over four years ago, when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was the Republican vice-presidential nominee. 
With 99 percent of precincts reporting, The Associated Press’ figures showed about 119.5 million people had voted in the White House race, but that number will increase as more votes are counted. In 2008, 131 million people cast ballots for president, according to the Federal Election Commission. 
Experts calculate turnout in different ways based on who they consider eligible voters. A separate, preliminary estimate from George Mason University’s Michael McDonald put the 2012 turnout rate at 60 percent of eligible voters, a drop-off of more than 2 percentage points from 2008. McDonald said the 2012 figure would likely be revised as absentee votes were counted.


Anonymous said...

Thus illustrating the fallacy of the squishy moderate "experts" always counseling GOP candidates not to upset women and undecideds.

You can't win by trying to appeal to the center if doing so suppresses your voter base.

Anonymous said...

Ken Mehlman ran the turnout for republicans in 2004, their only popular vote win in the last 6 elections.

Midgardian said...

Many people remark that the Democratic party is one of blacks and Latinos but no. It's essentially the party of Jews, gays, and white liberals. Since they don't have the votes to win elections--especially after losing the South and white working class--, they use latinos, blacks, and brainwashed women to supply the votes.
But the main agenda under Obama has really been for Jews and gays. They get the bulk of the pie. Blacks and Latinos get something but it's crumbs compared to what Jews and gays get.

GOP should try to win over the white working class, but it can't. Bulk of GOP money comes from rich folks, and rich folks want globalism that made them even richer.

Anonymous said...

McGovern could have won in 2012. That's how much the nation changed.

Anonymous said...

If demography is destiny, Jews would be powerless in America. After all, 98% of Americans are gentiles and only 2% are Jews. Yet, Jews pretty much control and own the US.
Jews are vastly outnumbered but very creative in their use and manipulation of power. They use the resentments of various groups against one another. As Wieseltier said, make white Christians fight Muslims in the Middle East while supporting Muslim-Americans against white Christians in America.

Anonymous said...

There seems to be a self destructive element here.

My understanding is that in Denmark, the non white immigrants are more than 14 times as likely to commit violent crimes as native born Danes.

So Danes did the sensible thing and voted in a political party that promised to restrict non white immigration.

however in the most recent election Danes decided to vote back to power the party of the left that promises a massive increase in non white immigration.

Hard to explain this outcome in Denmark without some reference to boredom and enui.

The nearest parallel I can think of is Kristen Stewart. If you google "Kristen Stewart Craved Something 'Crazy' To Excite Her 'Boring' Life!" what you read is that she found being wealthy and safe to be too boring and bland, and deliberately threw a monkey wrench in to her life.

Same thing in Denmark, the Danes find life with sane safe fellow Danes to be boring and are spicing it up by adding violent foreigners.

Could you explain the whites in Vermont voting against Romney the same way?

Anonymous said...

You suppose Romney's Mormonism kept a lot of Christian conservatives at home?

Anonymous said...

Goroff and friends from facebook:

Goroff: "Just so I cover all bases from discussions on here and to conserve time; I have absolutely brilliant friends. They all nailed this election and I was totally wrong to think Obama would win by less. Nate Silver is probably the smartest pollster in history and his model is the most accurate ever devised. The GOP is a party that is totally broken and we are looking at permanent Democratic rule due to a combination of demographics and the fact that the tea party and evangelicals control the party. W caused most of the problems in Washington and was so bad that it could take over a decade to recover. I am excited about the second term and any problems are due to Mcconnell and Boehner not being willing to give Obama what he wants. God Bless America. This is a wonderful country and Jon Jonathan E Appleton is the man who called this correctly. I hope that covers everything people want me to admit."

Anonymous said...

Friend of Goroff:

"I got pulled into this Nate Silver thing pretty late. In fact, I'm not sure I knew his name 3 weeks ago. I have only read his blog a couple of times, but it seemed articulate. His predictions seem to have been right on target, again. I can't say whether he is biased or not, but it seems he was accurate.

If the GOP were to drop its radical right views, then they would be a lot more competitive. But it is going to be hard if they stick by their Nordquist pledge of no tax increases. That is like saying we won't compromise. The Dems have put spending cuts on the table. Governmental growth is slowest under BO than any recent President. I think there can be a meeting somewhere in the middle. But the House has to put tax increases on the table.

Sadly I think the Great Recession will take more than 4 years to recover from. Whoever you want to blame it on, it started before BO. He started in a big hole and is trying to get out of it. The Great Depression took more than 1 FDR term to recover. I hope the Great Recession can be solved in 2 BO terms, but who knows. I think there are global structural issues at work, but that is for another thread."

Anonymous said...

Obama just have to open the floodgates...

jody said...

romney's advisors were giving him bad advice from the first day after he got the nomination.

i didn't watch television yesterday but i heard karl rove was reduced to a stuttering blob. doubt we ever need to hear another word from dick morris, either.

"Many people remark that the Democratic party is one of blacks and Latinos"

it is. however you correctly point out that european liberals and jews primarily use them as weapons against european conservatives. and you also correctly point out that they don't pay back the africans and mestizos with rewards commensurate with their support. they do get rewards but not the lion's share.

this is how sports in the US has been functioning for 50 years at least, except the difference is i guess, now the africans do get the lion's share of the rewards, for a decades long struggle which they essentially had nothing to do with. they were almost bystanders in the whole process, they just had to show up and be used as weapons.

Anonymous said...

The noticeable decrease in voter turnout (for both parties) seems inconsistent with the widespread reports of heavy turnout and unusually long lines at polling places. Any thoughts about how this could be?

Anonymous said...

The GOP voter base didn't stay home. If you saw the Romney crowds, esp. in battleground states, you'd know that.

You can't count AK as turnout for 2008 was for Palin and I'd discount lower turnout in any state hit by the storm, like Maryland, (and btw, where the Presidential contest was not in question) so I am anxious to read the later analyses.

We will have to see if Ralph Reed's vaunted registration drive of evangelicals in VA and Ohio paid off and if they voted--I am told by a source, turnout there was good from that group, but I can't be sure of that. It's just that if that is true, then even more people stayed home...and I am suspicious.

Something is wrong here. Didn't you see the lines and lines of people in the battlegrounds?

Anonymous said...

This election was decided by traditionalist conservative Christians.

Everyone in the republican party was warned years ago that traditionalist conservatives consider Mormonism to be a cult. But the republican party ignored the warnings and nominated a Mormon.

the traditionalist conservative christians stayed home and handed the election to Obama.

If only the republicans had nominated a protestant and not a mormon this election would have swung the other way

Midgardian said...

In a strange way, conservatives won.

They've been calling for war, pro-rich policies, globalism, meritocracy, financialism, free marketism, anti-feminism, and etc.

Obama's been for the military industrial complex. Obama hasn't raised taxes. He's been for Wall Street, as was Clinton. He's for globalism. Hollywood is all about culture as free markets, giving people all the low denominator junk they want. Feminism is gone, and we have women as sex objects to be sold and marketed. New feminism is slut pride. Chicago has a big statue of Monroe as skank, and not a single criticism from feminists. Porn is 'empowerment'. No more pesky feminists to call men 'male chauvinists'. New 'war on women' is not helping women to be skanky enough.
And the three most talented groups in America--Jews, gays, and Asians--are getting richer and richer. MERIOTOCRACY!! And MLK is our god, and conservatives have been worshiping him since the 80s.

So, we won!!!!

I wish we lost.

Anonymous said...

"Bulk of GOP money comes from rich folks, and rich folks want globalism that made them even richer."

That is such a piece of bullshit. I can see you've never been in a crowd of people who voted GOP, you idiot. The little people among us give what we can.

Are you going to argue that dems don't have huge money, rich donors?
if you want to believe that little ole Barry based his campaign off of five dollar donations, I'll sell you some land, cheap.

Anonymous said...

"McGovern could have won in 2012. That's how much the nation changed."

Mmmmmm, close, but maybe only Dukakis, because of the ethnic factor Dems like.

Anonymous said...

Another great conservative victory. Unionized working class is toast. NO more need for them when businesses can hire cheaper immigrants or send factories overseas. Yeah, we won!!

Anonymous said...

Market plunge today--get ready for several and get ready for 4 years of stagnation or outright depression.

My poor sister--77 years old, living on ss check from $700 a month w/drawn from her American Funds, portfolio down from 90k 15 years ago to 36k last quarter, don't know how much is left today. Has to pay for help to come to the house as she uses a walker and can't drive. So, here she is, paying her expenses, while the 23 year old Hispanic gal who comes once a day and gets her mail (it's down the street in one of those boxes) and takes out the garbage, and grocery shops for her once a week, takes in more money per month for being on welfare with one kid, living with her boyfriend, has almost free housing and food, medical and free internet while my sister has to pay full price to Comcast and pay full price for everything. That's the gal's only job. Takes 5-10 minutes a day. She told my sister last month or so she and her boyfriend were thinking they might want to have another child and she is going to try to get pregnant.

jody said...

"Obama hasn't raised taxes."


Anonymous said...

The Danish thing and Kristen Stewart thing is b.s.

Didn't you watch the video on youtube of how that whole affair was staged?

The theory is that Kristen and Rob were being blackmailed by the director and his wife, or by someone.


Kristen and Rob will get married and have lots of little kids and all your Roissy-isms are b.s. because those pictures were fake.

Anonymous said...

"Unionized working class is toast"

I am not going to cry for any UAW members or, for that matter, any union members. I got sick of my NEA and CTA shit. No wonder people hate teachers.

I recall the piece of junk that was my 77 Buick Regal, put together by United Auto Workers who were stoned half the time.

Dahlia said...

It will be interesting to find out who did NOT turn out. Evangelicals are notorious for staying home, so I would guess them first, but it's just a guess. I believe only Reagan, and especially Bush, have gotten them excited and to the polls in the modern age.

Anonymous said...

Sadly I think the Great Recession will take more than 4 years to recover from. Whoever you want to blame it on, it started before BO. He started in a big hole and is trying to get out of it.

So, you've bought the Obama line, huh? What President doesn't start with shit? What has he done to stem any tide?

Tell me, please, that you are just joshing.

Oh, 2016, he'll say, "Wow, you know, I think we need to re-establish third terms for a POTUS since that Bush guy screwed up so bad and I haven't really had time to fix things."

Then, he'll bring in a mummified Bill Clinton (I think Bubba won't be around in 4 years) and have a puppeteer work his mouth at Barry's convention.

slumber_j said...

I've got at least a partial explanation for huge lines in the non-battleground state of NY: much lower throughput.

This was the first election with the new paper-ballot scanner system that replaced the lever machines, which necessitated each voter's standing in three lines (or in some cases, four) that moved very slowly. Plus, a last-minute edict that anyone in any Sandy-affected county could vote by affidavit at any polling place in the county threw a further wrench in the works...

I went and saw the lines and couldn't be bothered to cancel my wife's vote. It's New York City, after all, so it wouldn't have mattered anyway. I'm not saying that was the right thing to do--just that it was my characteristically inertial response to the situation.

If they make it so cumbersome to vote that they discourage willing voters from casting a ballot, does that count as "suppression"?

slumber_j said...

By the way and off-topic, fund manager Eric Sprott has a very good piece on the ongoing slo-mo destruction of the middle class here:

Anonymous said...

I am not sure I understand. Maine has been ground zero for massive Somali immigration... with predictable effects.

Sweden the same... with predictable effects.

How is Kristen Stewart different in any way from the typical white female voter in Sweden or Maine?

sunbeam said...

The problem with the economy isn't cyclical, it's structural as you put it.

Barack Obama can't fix it, maybe it can be improved some if Congress and the Executive branch work together.

But to "fix" it would take structural changes, whatever those might be, that I don't think either party really want or could push through.

Look things are going quite well for certain segments of society, which all our representatives in Washington are included in, regardless of party, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Tax cuts haven't done squat to improve this economy, and won't. The only tax cut that would make a difference would be one to people who would be likely to spend the money they didn't have to pay in taxes.

A lot of that spending would go out of the country on good that are imported, or made of parts that are imported however.

A tax cut for our wealthier people, who are taxed at lower rates than anytime since the beginning of the 30's won't do squat. Even if they did get tax cuts, they won't produce jobs. They haven't been and they won't. They will invest in productive capacity overseas, or automation here, but they won't create new jobs. They might also masturbate it away in various financial instruments, tax dodges, or other FIRE things, but they will not produce jobs for Americans, at least not many, and not by design.

So where does that leave us? I have no idea. But regardless of anything DailyKos or the people here think, there isn't much Obama could do to change things. Even if he were willing to do so, which he hasn't shown much indication of.

I also want to say that the bite of outsourcing is still going on, and will continue. Automation is going to be a big, big, deal as well, bigger than outsourcing in fact.

And both are going to migrate "up" the employment tree to affect people that haven't been touched by this so far, and have no idea they can be affected by these things.

Leaving aside issues of whether immigrants change the country politically or socially, I think immigration has been less damaging to our economy than outsourcing and automation.

Though automation... that is just too lengthy a topic to discuss here.

David said...

>in the most recent election Danes decided to vote back to power the party of the left that promises a massive increase in non white immigration. Hard to explain this outcome in Denmark without some reference to boredom<

It's probably explained better by the Breivik massacre over in Norway sending solidarity-'n'-guilt ripples throughout the Netherlands. That is how the Northern European mind works. All that Breivik's murders did for his "cause" was to seriously screw it up.

(Unless his cause was something other than what he stated.)

It is very frightening to think how our emotions can be manipulated by events. From Welles's Martian radio panic to 9/11, "popular delusions and the madness of crowds" have stampeded common people to-and-fro for the benefit of their shepherds. This fact doesn't tempt me to incline to Alex Jones, more to Britain's bitter nihilist John Gray.

Anonymous said...

You can't win by trying to appeal to the center if doing so suppresses your voter base.

Anyone who sat on their ass in this election does not get to be called the "base".

Anonymous said...



David Davenport said...

Evangelicals are notorious for staying home, so I would guess them first, but it's just a guess. I believe only Reagan, and especially Bush, have gotten them excited and to the polls in the modern age.

I'm wondering how many Catholics in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc., balked at voting for a Latter Day Saint.

Maybe Steve can find some data on that.

Truth said...

Hey Sviggy, Whiskey, one of your boys on Caste Football took this election a whole lot harder than you did!...

"Nice posts, guys.

With the ever-cowardly, MLK-doting hustler, Ron Paul, conceding defeat to “Pepsi, Inc.” and “Coke, Inc.” months ago, I decided to vote for “Zio-Willard,” and more importantly, my own local and state elections. In my municipality, there isn’t a single non-white citizen currently claiming residency. Looking around at the voting center last night (little more than a fire hall garage, sans the fire trucks), I saw a plethora of hardened, gruff-looking, 40-something farmers and other “white male construction worker” types swathed in camouflage, work boots, and Carhartt coats, their wives quietly standing by their side.

As I peered around this room, ostensibly brimming with “real men,” I couldn’t envision a single person “breaking racial lines” and casting their vote for Barry Soetoro-Dunham-Obama. You know, that overtly anti-white, frail, pencil-necked, monstrously-ugly, grey-skinned, purple-lipped, elephant-eared, wide-nostril, cigarette-puffing, drug-addicted, asexual, human-teleprompter mulatto “Cultural Marxist Icon” by way of Kenya (birthed by a communism-supporting “white” prostitute mother by way of Kansas), then moving to Hawaii, then moving to Seattle, then moving to Indonesia, then moving to Los Angeles, then moving to Jew York, then moving Chicago, then moving to Massachusetts, then moving back to Chicago.

But to my surprise, as I checked the voting results of these supposed “real white men” this morning, I discovered that Willard Romney had only defeated his gaunt Negro-Nincompoop adversary (and his Albino-Negro Vice President / Minstrel Performer, Joe Biden) by around 7% of the vote in my municipality. How the hell could this be? How could these people, the ones with whom I allegedly share a plethora of common bonds (race, ethnic customs, religion, geographic location, etc.) betray every atom of blood that courses their veins and vote for this spineless, white-loathing Negro? Have these respiring white pustules, these chocolate-saturated DWF’s, these materialistic wiggers, these Zionist Christians (redundancy at its finest), these white-knighting, female-driven fools been raped so mercilessly by the incessantly-barking hellhounds of the Jew-Marx-Fag-Fem-Negro Alliance that they haven’t the necessary courage to cast a meaningless vote against such a creature? And yes, I understand that Romney “looks the part” but is a similar character with a differing array of anti-white flaws.

Of course, “rural” white voting for their own demise is nothing new. As Truthteller mentioned, every single New England state, PA, OH, NY, DC was easily taken by the little black conqueror. As I’ve said before…should there ever be a true “ethnic cleansing” instituted by white racialists, I contend that approximately 85% of the white population would need to be sent packing alongside the endless death-bouquet featuring the horrid shades of black, brown, red, and yellow.

Romney gives his concession speech to a sea of White faces. In a bit, Obama will give his victory speech to a United Nations audience.
Yes, here is a photo from BarryO’s teleprompter-guided speech to his Corporate Citizenry, with their company’s Stars-N-Stripes logo perched atop the thunderous cheers of jubilee emanating from the room of reanimated corpses masquerading as “white” human beings, Jews, communists, Marxists, homosexual men, lesbians, female chauvinists, blacks, mulattos, Asians, Indians, Polynesians, Hispanics, Arabs, and other assorted antagonists of all that is good and deserving of love…

Auntie Analogue said...

Turnout, schmurnout.

Romney lost because too many white people acted from their deeply indoctrinated white guilt - from their fear of feeling themselves to be somehow "racist," and thus somehow "immoral": they voted Democrat to give themselves a pat on their backs for being morally superior to all those who did not vote for The One: economics, immigration, invade the world - none of those real issues even entered their small minds or huge tender hearts. Meanwhile, each one of the other racial groups voted for Obama almost as a solid bloc. Which, apropos of the way whites who torment themselves over their white guilt, brings to mind a line from an old folk song: "When will they ever learn?"

Who-Whom, anyone?

Hail said...

"Could you explain the whites in Vermont voting against Romney the same way?"

Racial Naivete, combined with aggressive conditioning by Hollywood to view Blacks as our moral superiors.

It is put nicely here:
"A white man in semi-rural Massachusetts knows one older black man who delivers his mail, and he sees Morgan Freeman as God and various numinous Negroes beamed from the TV connected to a satellite dish on his roof."

jody said...

"Barack Obama can't fix it"

this is correct. because he has no idea what he's doing - on almost any issue. your premise seems to be that nobody could do anything about this. this is not correct. in fact, the voters have selected perhaps the worst available person to handle these matters.

your mistake is to assume barack obama is pretty much the same as dozens of other responsible adult men in america with intelligence and experience in these matters, and as such, if there's not much obama can do, there's not much these guys could do either. well obama has 1 of those qualities - he's an adult man. he doesn't have any of the others. please, don't substitute barack hussein obama for "pretty much any intelligent, capable guy". he's neither intelligent on the issue nor capable.

this is almost like saying a mediocre lawyer with no medical experience has an equally good chance of saving a gunshot wound victim as an experienced, above average trauma surgeon. the lawyer goes in there fumbling around and can't even stop the bleeding and the patient is dead in 10 minutes.

oh no, the lawyer couldn't save the patient. let's throw our hands up in resignation. nobody in the president's shoes could do a much better job. if an intellectually average lawyer with no financial experience, driven by marxist ideology, couldn't revive this economy, how could anybody?

in reality there are dozens a guys who could go in there, do a very boring, very competent, zero glamour job for 4 to 8 years, in a presidential performance which is dry and tedious, one which doesn't interest the liberal television producers and anchors at all, one which doesn't produce a personality president a star president, yet their staid steady capable work could steer the ship back on course.

they won't come in and return to the US to it's heydey or anything like that, but they could do a decent job gettting the US back on track, at least for this one basic metric: the US will add 3 dollars of GDP for every 1 dollar of debt. that is to say, make it so that real economic growth is increasing faster than debt. right now the US is adding 3 dollars of debt for every 1 dollar of GDP. or maybe the ratio is even worse. in any case, you can't "grow" your way out of this situation. GPD growth is 1% but debt growth is 5%.

jody said...

"Tax cuts haven't done squat to improve this economy, and won't."

the united states has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world. it's 35%. reducing that would help a lot. in fact, romney even suggested that.

quickly though, to google, where you'll find the milton friedman video on youtube about how "no company pays taxes" and "they just pass it on to the customer". this is not correct. while it is true that very large ventures can pass on a lot of their costs, or avoid a lot of taxes by complicated accounting and tricky international enterprising, most small and medium businesses cannot pass on a 35% price increase to their customers.

PPACA, or obamacare, has other tax increases that will hit small and medium businesses and further complicate the economic situation in the US.

jody said...

in this way you sound a lot like obama. because he's never run a business, or had any real world experience at all pretty much, when he thinks "taxes" he thinks about federal income tax or somebody taking money out of a worker's paycheck. in reality there's hundreds of taxes everywhere on everything. obama has a consumer's mindset. he's not a producer. in fact people like him produce nothing. never have, never will.

this is one of the ironies of president obama. when he starts talking about "at some point you have enough money" and "nobody needs to make more than $250,000 a year." one wonders what the limit obama has in mind for when a person has "made enough" money. 5 million? 10 million? maybe 50 million?

obama probably thinks things like "why would anybody need anything more than a nice house and a mercedes and maybe a million dollars to retire on. anybody who has anymore than that is just being greedy, and it SHOULD be the state's job to take the rest of their money and distribute it to other people who were less fortunate."

then obama leaves his office and goes and turns on the television, where he watches his favorite thing in the world, the NBA. and not the slightest hint of cognitive dissonance creeps across his small, limited brain. because obama probably doesn't even understand that it costs THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to own and operate ONE of the NBA teams he so desperately loves. his personal favorite, the chicago bulls, are worth 600 million dollars.

if a person cannot accumulate 300 million dollars, they can't even buy and operate a SINGLE NBA team. and there are 30 guys who own teams in the NBA, not just one. so there are BILLIONS of dollars of private, personal wealth required to make that league work, to pay the africans their 10 million dollars a year to juggle the orange ball, to build the 500 million dollar arenas, to staff them, to provide the television coverage and production teams, so on and so forth. obama doesn't understand this, the financial reality of his favorite thing in the world, professional basketball. he's never even thought of stuff like this.

there is this entire huge world of stuff was built up around him, built by the the producers, and here he is, living in it, enjoying it, but a pure consumer, a total non-producer having delusions that great wealth did not create this huge world of stuff around him. having delusions that everybody is like him, a non producer who would never even generate 2 million dollars worth of wealth in his lifetime and has the same small minded aspirations of owning a nice comfortable house and a mercedes and retiring at 55 with a million dollar pension.

100 million dollars?! nobody needs that much. there's no purpose to it, you could never use it all. what could you possibly use 100 million dollars for? the government should confiscate most of that!

back in reality, you can't buy any NHL team, NBA team, MLB team, or NFL team for 100 million dollars. so there are over 120 business operations in the US and canada right now being run by guys who have a net worth far exceeding what obama thinks any single person needs, yet these sports leagues produce entertainment consumed by hundreds of millions of people around the world.

Cail Corishev said...

"I'm wondering how many Catholics in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc., balked at voting for a Latter Day Saint."

I'd say not many. Modernist Catholics are so ecumenical nowadays that they'd vote for a Luciferian Jewish Freemason as long as he said the right things about social justice. They wouldn't bat an eye at a Mormon. Serious Catholics, on the other hand, know how much Obama and his ilk are gunning for them, and care too much about abortion to do anything but vote to oust him.

Anonymous said...

I grew up in Europe and moved here when I was 19. That was thirty years ago. I'm still baffled by the racial attitudes of Americans, and American whites in particular. Left, right or center, they all have an almost worshipful view of black people. My brother-in-law is a pretty conservative guy - and he would like nothing more than to be able to vote for a black man. He was quite enthusiastic about Herman Cain for a while. I've met white Americans who've told me, earnestly, that they wish they were black.

Maybe you have to grow up here to understand it.

Anonymous said...

This election was decided by traditionalist conservative Christians.

And there I was thinking that the moby's would disappear once the election was over.

You're not traditionalist, conservative, or Christian, so stop trying to speak for them.

David said...

Truth, do you really believe that the comment you quoted was sincere and wasn't written by a troll?

Truth said...

"David said...

Truth, do you really believe that the comment you quoted was sincere and wasn't written by a troll?"

Read it in context, and you decide. It's post number 111.