Go Scott Brown!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
i know that conservatives get very upset when one brings up the subject of possible racism in a country with a black president and an increasingly non-white population.

but Pat Buchanan absolutely attributes the recent GOP wins in VA, NJ, and MA to straight-up vengeful whites angry about advancements made by minorities.


Has Obama lost white America?
Pat Buchanan explains racial breakdown of vote in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia
Posted: January 21, 2010
7:53 pm Eastern

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Republicans will study the returns from Massachusetts, then review the returns from Virginia and New Jersey, light will fall upon the path to victory over Barack Obama in 2012.

Obama defeated John McCain by winning the black vote 24 to 1, the Hispanic vote 2 to 1 and taking a larger share of the white vote, 44 percent, than did John Kerry or Al Gore. As the white vote was three-fourths of the national turnout, Obama coasted to victory.

Now consider Massachusetts. In the 2008 election, no less than 79 percent of the voters were white, and Obama carried them by 20 points, winning the state 62 to 36.

How did Scott Brown turn that 26-point deficit into a 6-point victory? By winning the white vote as massively as did Obama. While there are no exit polls to prove it, we do have exit polls from Virginia and New Jersey, which tend to corroborate it.

Bob McDonnell won the Virginia governor's race by 17, while McCain lost Virginia by 6. As McDonnell did equally poorly with African-Americans, losing the black vote 90 to 9, while McCain's lost it 92 to 8, what explains his Virginia landslide?

The white vote. McDonnell won Virginia's white vote 68 to 32, though his opponent was a downstate Democrat more conservative than the Northern Virginia candidates he beat in the primary.

In New Jersey, same story. McCain won 8 percent of the black vote. Gov. Chris Christie won 8 percent of the black vote. How did Christie turn a McCain loss of New Jersey by 16 points into a 5-point victory?

The white vote. McCain won the white vote in New Jersey 50 to 49, but Christie won the white vote 59 to 34, almost 2 to 1.

Republicans have won three major races – two of them upsets and one a Massachusetts miracle – because the white share of the vote in all three rose as a share of the total vote, and Republicans swept the white vote in Reagan-like landslides.

What explains the white surge to the GOP?

First, sinking white support for Obama, seen as ineffectual in ending the recession and stopping the loss of jobs.

Second, a growing perception that Obama is biased. When the president blurted that the Cambridge cops and Sgt. James Crowley "acted stupidly" in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates – a rush to judgment that proved wrong – his support sank in white America and especially in Massachusetts, where black Gov. Deval Patrick joined in piling on Crowley. Deval is now in trouble, too.

Then there was Obama's appointment of Puerto Rican American Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her militant support for race and ethnic preferences and her decision to deny Frank Ricci and the white firefighters of New Haven a hearing on their case that they were denied promotions they won in competitive exams because they were white caused 31 GOP senators to vote against her
.

While Massachusetts is Democrat over Republican 3 to 1, Reagan carried the state in 1984, and Hillary Clinton clobbered Obama in the 2008 primary, though the Kennedys were in Obama's corner. The Scott Brown Democrats were the Hillary Democrats were the Reagan Democrats.

But if McDonnell, Christie and Brown could roll up large enough shares of the white vote to win in three major states McCain lost, why did McCain lose all three?

Answer: In 2008, the working and middle class had had a bellyful of the Bush-McCain Republicans. They were seen as pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and pro-NAFTA, when U.S. workers had watched 5 million manufacturing jobs disappear in a decade – and reappear in China. They were willing to give Obama a chance because Obama had persuaded them by November he was not just another big-spending utopian liberal.

So what have Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi been doing for a year? Crafting a federal takeover of health care with a vast plan that provides coverage for the uninsured – most of whom are minorities – while sticking it to Medicare recipients, 80 percent to 90 percent of whom are white.


Immigrants are 21 percent of the uninsured, but only 7 percent of the population. This means white folks on Medicare or headed there will see benefits curtailed, while new arrivals from the Third World, whence almost all immigrants come, get taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Any wonder why all those tea-party and town-hall protests seem to be made up of angry white folks?

What the McDonnell, Christie and Brown victories teach is that the GOP should stop listening to the Wall Street Journal and start listening to these forgotten Americans.

An end to affirmative action and ethnic preferences, an end to bailouts of Wall Street bankers, a moratorium on immigration until unemployment falls to 6 percent, an industrial policy that creates jobs here and stops shipping them to China appear a winning hand in 2012.
 
I started to post that earlier.


I did a quick skim read, and I didn't see it as racism as much as whites are just less inclined to vote for or with Obama now then they were before.

As unseemly as Buchanan article may sound to some, to others it will just be received as calling 'a spade, a spade', not bowing to the P C crowd.

The trick about elections, is that people are fickle on vote on whims, Obama won with his portion of wing-nuts showing up at the polls along with a decent portion of swing voters.

Now the right has their portion of wing-nuts fired up and ready to go
along with a decent portion of swing voters.

And yes, now with Alito having replaced O'Conner and the flood gates of Corporate Money going to the GOP, look for the GOP to make serious gains in all upcoming elections.
 
i'm not saying that Buchanan is correct, but that he believes -- contrary to the "we're not racist!" cries of the tea baggers -- that it is absolutely due to white resentment of minorities.



and, yes, the SCOTUS decision today is shockingly awful.
 
i'm not saying that Buchanan is correct.

I really don't want read and ingest his reasoning

but, I do think his conclusions about how the votes are breaking down is correct.

Just look at the precincts Brown carried in MA vs what Obama carried in Nov 08

and I think he is correct about the Virginia vote break downs, too.

I just think many people put as much energy into choosing a candidate to vote for as they do when the choose a movie to see on a week end of a flavor at Baskin Robins.

I no longer believe in the collective reasoning and judgment of the American Electorate.
 
I did a quick skim read, and I didn't see it as racism as much as whites are just less inclined to vote for or with Obama now then they were before.

I agree. Obama is the same color he was a year ago.

He's losing the independent vote, not the white vote.
 
I agree. Obama is the same color he was a year ago.

He's losing the independent vote, not the white vote.


and the independent vote is largely white. and if Buchanan is to be believed, race has a lot to do with why the independents are anti-incumbent.

why else would Limbaugh slam the Haitians if not to increase the perception in the minds of some that Obama is somehow "for the blacks" (as i've heard it said) at the expense of Palin's "real Americans"?
 
Olbermann said "We now have a Supreme Court decision worse than Dred Scott."

I don't think Olbermann's really fit to call anyone else a racist anymore. Not that he ever was.

Wait, how come all you people aren't screaming JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!!!!

Surely INDY is offended, given how he posts ad nauseum about the courts deciding what the law is.
 
Watching Mass, the electorate being informed enough via media and internet and realizing the potential consequences of the current administrations policies-checked the Narcissist in Chief.

<>
 
Watching Mass, the electorate being informed enough via media and internet and realizing the potential consequences of the current administrations policies-checked the Narcissist in Chief.

<>

How much of this "informed" electorate came out to vote? How were they informed? Do you mean the liberal media informed them? That can't be true.
 
How much of this "informed" electorate came out to vote?

Informed enough to come out and stop the direction of his policies and informed enough to make a sound judgement by weighing both liberal and conservative media outlets' disbursed information accordingly.

<>
 
"Informed" enough and truly informed are not the same thing.

Only having part of the information can be a dangerous thing, something conservatives seem to revel in these days.
 
Liberals think they have everything figured out.

This arrogance got Obama Care stopped and the President checked.

More independent minded voters and many on the Left recognized this and voted for Brown.

The data is there, you can't ignore it-unless you're too stuborn and partisan enough to.

thank you,
<>
 
liberals think they have everything figured out.
Oh really? Who are the ones who think they have so much figured out that they have the right to deny equality? Who are the ones that have so much figured out that they can ignore science? Who are the ones that have so much figured out that they can place an absolute sentence based on a very human and flawed system and call it "justice"?

This arrogance got Obama Care stopped and the President checked.
HEALTHcare got temporarily paused, and the people lose out, but it wasn't due to arrogance. It was ignorance that paused it, ignorance on both sides. Why the Dems couldn't figure out a way to communicate to the people baffles me... And why so many of you can't figure it out baffles me even more. :doh:

Many on the Left recognized this and voted for Brown.
Really? I'll ask again, what are the numbers?
 
The data is there, you can't ignore it-unless you're too stuborn and partisan enough to.

You added this later...

Let me ask you, why is it that not one conservative can discuss healthcare in an informed manner on this board? If the data is there, why can't one of you discuss it properly? I've heard the most absurd BS regarding the current system of healthcare, and even more BS regarding reform in this forum. I wish that at least one of you who were against reform could tell me why, or give me a viable solution, but not one has. NOT ONE.

I hear "I don't want a collective shaping my healthcare" yet they defend current insurance companies who are collectively shaping healthcare.

I hear "why can't they sell state to state to increase competition" and then I point out why and that poster can't reply only to ask it again a week later.

But my favorite is "why not health saving accounts" which only help such a small portion of the population that it's ridiculous...

So if the data is there, why do we keep hearing the BS from you guys?
 
We couldn't afford it, that's why it was stopped, common sense voters in Mass recognized this, and that's why they stopped it-it's that simple.

So, the current system we have now needs to be modified, streamlined and corrected,
NOT eliminated and replaced with something MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE that doesn't adequately fixed the problem and shackle us w something that we cannot afford.

This isn't rocket science, only fiscal soundness.

<>
 
We couldn't afford it, that's why it was stopped, common sense voters in Mass recognized this, and that's why they stopped it-it's that simple.
But this has never been the argument. The tea partiers are not holding up signs that say it's not fiscally responsible, they're holding up signs that say "socialism" and comparing Obama to Hitler. So don't ever pretend this is the issue. And it definately was not Brown's stance, he voted for healthcare reform on the state level that would have pissed off most Republicans and tea partiers, he just said he couldn't vote for the bill the way it is now, and that was mostly just to get his votes.

If money is your reason for being against it then that's fine but be consistent in arguing for every stance based on that, which you don't do. The cost is an issue; one I think Republicans are skewing and one that Dems are not paying close enough attention to, but I don't think that's the core issue at all.

Do you argue money when it comes to the defense of our country? Then why do you argue money when it comes to the defending the health of our citizens?



So, the current system we have now needs to be modified, streamlined and corrected,

No the current system needs to be completely reformed, the current system is not working and only getting worse.
 
It's the economy stupid. As the expression goes. It's not going well, the Democrats are in power, so they vote in the Republican. If it was reverse, then the democrat wins.

Plenty of other things going on of course, but in my home state of MA, I think it mostly angry about the economy. Health care wasn't an issue, because we already have a better version than the congress is proposing. And Martha rang a horrible campaign.

My friend nails it -- Steve Kornacki

And btw, women are 0 for 8 in MA running for Senate. So think more sexism than racism.


---
On a side note, nothing is more upsetting than people that are against the health care bill, that NEED it. Plenty of the people that are at the tea parties would benefit from this. They need it. But they listen to the people in charge and turn what should be a non political issue, into one.

Who has "socialist" health care. Well, everyone that works for the government and people on Medicare. So obviously, it's the end of times if we all have the same rights to it.

My friend just lost his job and all he cares about is the health insurance. I had cancer, so I stayed in a job because of it.

Only powerful country that makes it's citizens be afraid to get sick or leave a job due to health insurance. We make fun of France -- but guess what -- all citizens get health care.

How can this be a bad thing?

You don't need 60 votes. You need 51. Just pass the fucker.
 
and the independent vote is largely white. and if Buchanan is to be believed, race has a lot to do with why the independents are anti-incumbent?

No, Buchanan isn't to be believed on this one :ohmy:

Was he expecting blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics to flip to the right? Of course independent whites are going to be the big swing vote. Who else is going to move the needle? While I agree with Buchanan that Obama is losing the white vote, it's because of policies, not pigment.
 
On a side note, nothing is more upsetting than people that are against the health care bill, that NEED it. Plenty of the people that are at the tea parties would benefit from this. They need it. But they listen to the people in charge and turn what should be a non political issue, into one.

The more people hear and see what's going on, the less they like it. It's been a steady decline in support for over 9 months on Harry and Nancy's health care plans.

Senator Brown gives Congress a chance to re-boot and maybe get more than 35% of the folks to support their health bill.
 
The more people hear and see what's going on, the less they like it.

I think it's more about WHAT people are hearing and seeing...

The Dems have done a horrific job of keeping the public informed. The only outlets that are really talking about it are the notjob outlets, while Rush and Palin are talking about death panels, the White House and other outlets are remaining fairly quiet comparably. He who screams the loudest...
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.
--Jan 20th interview with George Stephanopoulos

So who's right. Pat Buchanan or President Obama?
 
RealClearPolitics - The Meaning of Brown

After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

Bull's-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.
 
Foden20100122-Canaries20100121021532.jpg


Ok, I'll stop gloating. [fingers crossed]
 
BVS, you find "equality" in the United States Constitution?

Where?

The word does not exist but you've been showed, I don't know probably a hundred times by many in here how it exists in the interpretation of the constitution, but I guess you covered your ears and shut eyes the same way you do with healthcare everytime...:|
 
The word does not exist but you've been showed, I don't know probably a hundred times by many in here how it exists in the interpretation of the constitution, but I guess you covered your ears and shut eyes the same way you do with healthcare everytime...:|

So you admit "equality" is in the "interpretation" of the Constitution.

It's a start.

Now if we can just get you and others to see that there may be reasons other than "homophobia" or "racism" to explain why someone may interpret the Constitution differently than you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom