US election 2012

[Vintage Paw]

And I, too, would vote for Obama if I were able. They are both going to disenfranchise the poor and have horrific due process records (Obama's opened the floodgates with that, I think) just as anyone heading either of those two parties would, but Romney would disenfranchise more along with his backwards thinking on things like lgbt rights and birth control and so on. I'm wary of suggesting voting for a candidate based on those narrow cultural issues, but when they are demonstrably the same on other subjects, I guess that's all you've got.

BUT, what I would most definitely do is encourage people to engage more in their own local and regional politics, and vote in those elections. Ensuring that there are Dems in the House and Senate, and in local government, does seem to have more of an impact in real terms to people's everyday lives than who is in the White House. I think that's something that's lost in all of this.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

BUT, what I would most definitely do is encourage people to engage more in their own local and regional politics, and vote in those elections. Ensuring that there are Dems in the House and Senate, and in local government, does seem to have more of an impact in real terms to people's everyday lives than who is in the White House. I think that's something that's lost in all of this.

There's a lot more local government participation I think (helped also by the fact that people seem to vote for every bloody position in the US). I saw lots of signs supporting Local Candidate X (or Y) For Something - sometimes five signs in a row on somebody's fence for different roles at different levels. I don't think I saw a single Obama or Romney sign.

 

[savoloysam]

Obama looked like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights. A classic example of over-confidence meeting someone in a corner with nothing left to do but fight tough. Oh dear.

 

[savoloysam]

Before someone quotes the lies, remember when it's face to face it's 93% body language. All "good politicians" know that. Obama lost that one clean out.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Anywhere good online to view the whole debate?

 

[Vintage Paw]

There's a lot more local government participation I think (helped also by the fact that people seem to vote for every bloody position in the US). I saw lots of signs supporting Local Candidate X (or Y) For Something - sometimes five signs in a row on somebody's fence for different roles at different levels. I don't think I saw a single Obama or Romney sign.

Perhaps it varies from place to place. My understanding from my friends in Michigan is that it's precisely that they vote for so many different positions that they might as well be voting in the fabled local dog catcher means there's an element of switching off, because it's either difficult to keep up with who's running for what and why, or it's difficult to keep caring. That being said, they recently had a Primary in their area (with all sorts of things on the ballot, down to voting on local taxes and what they should be spent on) and I'm a little bit proud to say I think I was instrumental in encouraging one of them to actually go and vote Turnout for their city was 38% which, tbf, is higher than a lot of local elections here.

 

[Miss Caphat]

Did Romney do well or just exceed everyone's low expectations? (Not that the two are necessarily different)

Pretty sure several people wouldn't have expected him to find the podium, let alone argue a point.

he seemed like a totally different person
for someone who seems to only speak gaffe-anese prior to the debate, he had a very centrist, non-offensive, and articulate response to almost every question and topic.
Maybe the Romney campaign earned so much money they were able to pay for a Mitt look-alike robot clone?

 

[Vintage Paw]

he seemed like a totally different person
for someone who seems to only speak gaffe-anese prior to the debate, he had a very centrist, non-offensive, and articulate response to almost every question and topic.
Maybe the Romney campaign earned so much money they were able to pay for a Mitt look-alike robot clone?

Part of the dissection I've read talked about him ditching the potentially dangerous affiliation to tea party ideals and the like for the debates, because obviously he's going for the undecideds, just like Obama is. They talked about that being the same kind of reason why Obama might not have mentioned the 47% thing - because it could look petty and partisan.

Romney put a lot of emphasis on bipartisanship, especially during the part where he effectively said he'd crowdsource his tax plan The commentary I read called this the etch-a-sketch debate: he's shaken away everything he's campaigned on over the last few months, and how on earth are you supposed to prep against something like that?

It'll be interesting to see what the next debate brings. And I'm really looking forward to the VP one. A man who can't open his mouth without an embarrassing gaffe, and a man who can't open his mouth without spewing forth a vile torrent of bullshit. Fun times.

 

[TomUS]

Before someone quotes the lies, remember when it's face to face it's 93% body language. All "good politicians" know that. Obama lost that one clean out.

Yep. He kept looking down at the podium or adresssing the moderator while Romney looked directly at Obama. Amazed Obama would make such a mistake.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Is it me or was Romney doing a Reagan impression?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Part of the dissection I've read talked about him ditching the potentially dangerous affiliation to tea party ideals and the like for the debates, because obviously he's going for the undecideds, just like Obama is. They talked about that being the same kind of reason why Obama might not have mentioned the 47% thing - because it could look petty and partisan.

Romney put a lot of emphasis on bipartisanship, especially during the part where he effectively said he'd crowdsource his tax plan The commentary I read called this the etch-a-sketch debate: he's shaken away everything he's campaigned on over the last few months, and how on earth are you supposed to prep against something like that?

It'll be interesting to see what the next debate brings. And I'm really looking forward to the VP one. A man who can't open his mouth without an embarrassing gaffe, and a man who can't open his mouth without spewing forth a vile torrent of bullshit. Fun times.

The VP debates should be good, Biden is capable of tearing his opponents a new asshole but couldn't last time because it was a woman (never looks good a man attacking a women on TV) but this time the gloves will come off.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Yep. He kept looking down at the podium or adresssing the moderator while Romney looked directly at Obama. Amazed Obama would make such a mistake.

 

[revol68]

what was Obama's game btw, he looked frozen.

Is he suckering Romney in to overstretching himself, committing to a policy and then he's going to hammer him?

 

[Ash Mahay]

And I, too, would vote for Obama if I were able. They are both going to disenfranchise the poor and have horrific due process records (Obama's opened the floodgates with that, I think) just as anyone heading either of those two parties would, but Romney would disenfranchise more along with his backwards thinking on things like lgbt rights and birth control and so on. I'm wary of suggesting voting for a candidate based on those narrow cultural issues, but when they are demonstrably the same on other subjects, I guess that's all you've got.

BUT, what I would most definitely do is encourage people to engage more in their own local and regional politics, and vote in those elections. Ensuring that there are Dems in the House and Senate, and in local government, does seem to have more of an impact in real terms to people's everyday lives than who is in the White House. I think that's something that's lost in all of this.

I think a better understanding of American politics is needed here. The GOP & Dems are not interchangable for our Tories & Labour, dont operate in the same way, especial at local levels & dont always represent "right" & "left" in the way thats portrayed, which is one of the reasons why some of the most dirt poor counties in the country are hardline GOP.

Its not because they are all "right wing extremists", although obviously some are, its also because in some cases they would struggle to survive under their Dem candidate.

In our country when was the last time we had a Tory, for example, further to the left than some Labour MPs?

We can talk about this party moving to the left, or right, but that sort of overlap is rare, but in America less so.

Look at the VP candidates for example, Biden, from a priviledged family, afaik never done a days manual work in his life, who entered politics for no other reason than to make a profit (his first election, when his property management company needed a capital boost, was to campaign for more social housing, to be built by his friends & managed by him).

Ryan, conversly, first held left wing views, starting with anarchy, before then drifting into objectivism (Rand brand libertarianism if anyone is unfamiliar with the term), & then to Republicanism, working many low paid manual & service industry jobs to make ends meet in his early political days.

So one was fuelled to enter politics for pure selfish greed, while the other entered for genuinely ideological reasons, but who was left & who was right?

That is far from a-typical in America.

I mean lets not forget that 150 years ago the Republican party was being endorsed by none less than Karl Marx, while the KKK was being formed as the militant arm of the Democrats (& they continued to support the Dems for the next hundred years & indeed there are still plenty of good old boys in the Dems, some having been at very high levels even in recent years).

Again, who is left & who is right?

Lets take one of those dirt poor counties. Imagine living in one, lets say youre earning £3.50 an hour, & you have two candidates at local level, one is seeking extra funding for a new library, sounds promising, except there already is one there, the new one is only being campaigned for as another potential construction project (& the main construction company just happens to be owned by one of the candidates brothers), whilst the other candidate is looking at lowering the local tax burden (for everyone) & you know hes going to secure inward investment for your county.

Now remember youre on £3.50 an hour. This is before tax, local & national, direct & indirect, so that after working a 60 hour week youre finding only about £120 is in your pocket, & youve got no housing benefit so you're actually working 60 hours a week for less than virtually everyone here can get on benefits.

Now neither candidates offering to increase your minimum wage, you have no health cover & neither candidates offering that either.

Which way are you voting?

Further cuts to your income, to help make a candidates brother, or the guy offering you a tax break?

Im sure I dont even need to tell you which candidate was which.

Now how would you feel about some stranger, from a strange land, trying to convince you to vote for the guy putting an even tighter squeeze on your very meagre income?

American politics really isnt as clear cut as many Brits think.

Whilst it is true that at national level the Republican party is often to the right, & the Dems closer to center right, & whilst its also true that a large number of the left identify with the Dems, & the right with the GOP, its a million miles from the much clearer right/left divide in this country & voting Dem doesnt mean voting for the working classes.

 

[Dr Jon]

Bud Light and cheesy made-for-TV “reality” shows constitute the method by which the American sheeple choose their ‘leaders’. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

link

 

[Vintage Paw]

I think a better understanding of American politics is needed here. The GOP & Dems are not interchangable for our Tories & Labour, dont operate in the same way, especial at local levels & dont always represent "right" & "left" in the way thats portrayed, which is one of the reasons why some of the most dirt poor counties in the country are hardline GOP.

Its not because they are all "right wing extremists", although obviously some are, its also because in some cases they would struggle to survive under their Dem candidate.

In our country when was the last time we had a Tory, for example, further to the left than some Labour MPs?

We can talk about this party moving to the left, or right, but that sort of overlap is rare, but in America less so.

Look at the VP candidates for example, Biden, from a priviledged family, afaik never done a days manual work in his life, who entered politics for no other reason than to make a profit (his first election, when his property management company needed a capital boost, was to campaign for more social housing, to be built by his friends & managed by him).

Ryan, conversly, first held left wing views, starting with anarchy, before then drifting into objectivism (Rand brand libertarianism if anyone is unfamiliar with the term), & then to Republicanism, working many low paid manual & service industry jobs to make ends meet in his early political days.

So one was fuelled to enter politics for pure selfish greed, while the other entered for genuinely ideological reasons, but who was left & who was right?

That is far from a-typical in America.

I mean lets not forget that 150 years ago the Republican party was being endorsed by none less than Karl Marx, while the KKK was being formed as the militant arm of the Democrats (& they continued to support the Dems for the next hundred years & indeed there are still plenty of good old boys in the Dems, some having been at very high levels even in recent years).

Again, who is left & who is right?

Lets take one of those dirt poor counties. Imagine living in one, lets say youre earning £3.50 an hour, & you have two candidates at local level, one is seeking extra funding for a new library, sounds promising, except there already is one there, the new one is only being campaigned for as another potential construction project (& the main construction company just happens to be owned by one of the candidates brothers), whilst the other candidate is looking at lowering the local tax burden (for everyone) & you know hes going to secure inward investment for your county.

Now remember youre on £3.50 an hour. This is before tax, local & national, direct & indirect, so that after working a 60 hour week youre finding only about £120 is in your pocket, & youve got no housing benefit so you're actually working 60 hours a week for less than virtually everyone here can get on benefits.

Now neither candidates offering to increase your minimum wage, you have no health cover & neither candidates offering that either.

Which way are you voting?

Further cuts to your income, to help make a candidates brother, or the guy offering you a tax break?

Im sure I dont even need to tell you which candidate was which.

Now how would you feel about some stranger, from a strange land, trying to convince you to vote for the guy putting an even tighter squeeze on your very meagre income?

American politics really isnt as clear cut as many Brits think.

Whilst it is true that at national level the Republican party is often to the right, & the Dems closer to center right, & whilst its also true that a large number of the left identify with the Dems, & the right with the GOP, its a million miles from the much clearer right/left divide in this country & voting Dem doesnt mean voting for the working classes.

Thanks for assuming what I do and don't know about American politics I shan't spell out my credentials because it always has a ring of "look at me, I'm better than you" about it, but thanks for the assumptions.

One thing I'm interested about knowing is where all the working class Britons who regularly vote Tory fit into your analysis.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Certificates and references on the table

 

[butchersapron]

Ryan, conversly, first held left wing views, starting with anarchy, before then drifting into objectivism (Rand brand libertarianism if anyone is unfamiliar with the term), & then to Republicanism, working many low paid manual & service industry jobs to make ends meet in his early political days.

I bet you can back up that Paul Ryan was originally an anarchist can't you? I just know it.

Doug Henwood has posted the best commentary i've seen on this debate, and also has the best line.

Romney believes in money. Obama believes in nothing.

 

[revol68]

That's a great line.

 

[sihhi]

WSWS I've not read in ages w/out much internet access - it's blocked in libraries - has this.

Equally bankrupt were the incessant references in the pro-Obama media, like the New York Times, to the president’s “professorial” demeanor and approach. Obama was no less vapid and pedantic in 2008, when the corporate-controlled media hailed him, without the slightest justification, as a superb orator who was moving millions.
Among the most apoplectic responses came from MSNBC’s Chris Mathews, who exploded “Where was Obama tonight?” as if the man on the stage in Denver and the occupant of the White House were two different people. In the debate, however, the real Obama was on display: a man with no significant political background or career, much less independent ideas. An individual who had passed through no real struggles before he was picked up and promoted as the symbol of “change,” while remaining a loyal servant of the state. No doubt, for someone whose meteoric political rise has depended on rich patrons, being roundly attacked by someone from that social layer was disconcerting.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/pers-o05.shtml

Romney observed, “High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They’ll do fine whether you’re president or I am.” Obama smiled in response.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/deba-o04.shtml


I agree, Obama is rubbish at public speeches and looks to be rubbish at debates when John McCain is absent. He never faces a (non-journalist) hostile audience face-to-face. He had one good-rhetorical speech in 2004 and got hyped from there on.
In people terms it's again the (most right wing) Democratic ticket since Kennedy-Johnson. Obama - worse than Bill Clinton. What Obama is doing to US public education, Clinton did not even dream of, and Obamacare is a softer and watered version of Clinton's plan.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Romney observed, “High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They’ll do fine whether you’re president or I am.” Obama smiled in response.

I remember being a bit taken aback when Romney said that. I'm not used to them being so blatant about admitting that sort of thing. It should have been jumped all over (not by Obama, he knew very well it was true) as an admission that Dem or Repub, they're in the business of capitalism, and that means rich at the top, poor at the bottom. But of course, it's more interesting to focus on the culture wars, and to fabricate an impression that small variances in tax plans will actually do something to improve the lot of this group or that.

 

[Brubricker]

Lets take one of those dirt poor counties. Imagine living in one, lets say youre earning £3.50 an hour, & you have two candidates at local level, one is seeking extra funding for a new library, sounds promising, except there already is one there, the new one is only being campaigned for as another potential construction project (& the main construction company just happens to be owned by one of the candidates brothers), whilst the other candidate is looking at lowering the local tax burden (for everyone) & you know hes going to secure inward investment for your county.

Now remember youre on £3.50 an hour. This is before tax, local & national, direct & indirect, so that after working a 60 hour week youre finding only about £120 is in your pocket, & youve got no housing benefit so you're actually working 60 hours a week for less than virtually everyone here can get on benefits.

Now neither candidates offering to increase your minimum wage, you have no health cover & neither candidates offering that either.

Which way are you voting?

I live in that county. You've got the issues all wrong. It's about religious nationalism, hatred of poor people on benefits and hatred of foreigners and blacks. Then there's the other two-thirds of the population that doesn't bother to vote at all. The US is the most apathetic democracy in the world and our election participation is at its absolute worst for the local ballots.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I think a better understanding of American politics is needed here. The GOP & Dems are not interchangable for our Tories & Labour, dont operate in the same way, especial at local levels & dont always represent "right" & "left" in the way thats portrayed, which is one of the reasons why some of the most dirt poor counties in the country are hardline GOP.

Its not because they are all "right wing extremists", although obviously some are, its also because in some cases they would struggle to survive under their Dem candidate.

In our country when was the last time we had a Tory, for example, further to the left than some Labour MPs?

We can talk about this party moving to the left, or right, but that sort of overlap is rare, but in America less so.

Look at the VP candidates for example, Biden, from a priviledged family, afaik never done a days manual work in his life, who entered politics for no other reason than to make a profit (his first election, when his property management company needed a capital boost, was to campaign for more social housing, to be built by his friends & managed by him).

Ryan, conversly, first held left wing views, starting with anarchy, before then drifting into objectivism (Rand brand libertarianism if anyone is unfamiliar with the term), & then to Republicanism, working many low paid manual & service industry jobs to make ends meet in his early political days.

So one was fuelled to enter politics for pure selfish greed, while the other entered for genuinely ideological reasons, but who was left & who was right?

That is far from a-typical in America.

I mean lets not forget that 150 years ago the Republican party was being endorsed by none less than Karl Marx, while the KKK was being formed as the militant arm of the Democrats (& they continued to support the Dems for the next hundred years & indeed there are still plenty of good old boys in the Dems, some having been at very high levels even in recent years).

Again, who is left & who is right?

Lets take one of those dirt poor counties. Imagine living in one, lets say youre earning £3.50 an hour, & you have two candidates at local level, one is seeking extra funding for a new library, sounds promising, except there already is one there, the new one is only being campaigned for as another potential construction project (& the main construction company just happens to be owned by one of the candidates brothers), whilst the other candidate is looking at lowering the local tax burden (for everyone) & you know hes going to secure inward investment for your county.

Now remember youre on £3.50 an hour. This is before tax, local & national, direct & indirect, so that after working a 60 hour week youre finding only about £120 is in your pocket, & youve got no housing benefit so you're actually working 60 hours a week for less than virtually everyone here can get on benefits.

Now neither candidates offering to increase your minimum wage, you have no health cover & neither candidates offering that either.

Which way are you voting?

Further cuts to your income, to help make a candidates brother, or the guy offering you a tax break?

Im sure I dont even need to tell you which candidate was which.

Now how would you feel about some stranger, from a strange land, trying to convince you to vote for the guy putting an even tighter squeeze on your very meagre income?

American politics really isnt as clear cut as many Brits think.

Whilst it is true that at national level the Republican party is often to the right, & the Dems closer to center right, & whilst its also true that a large number of the left identify with the Dems, & the right with the GOP, its a million miles from the much clearer right/left divide in this country & voting Dem doesnt mean voting for the working classes.

hmm.

are you British or American? Vintage Paw has always seemed to me to have a pretty good grasp on American politics (and I'm American) and I also find a lot of flaws in your analysis.

While I agree with the main point, most of your examples are a bit weak, if not false.
First of all, the fact that the two parties stood for VERY different, almost opposite things in the past is neither here nor there. An interesting bit of history, perhaps, but one that has no relevance to what the two parties currently stand for.

Secondly, there are a multitude of reasons why the poorest areas in the country, particularly the poorest rural, white counties in the US have tended to support the GOP. It's clearly not just economic, or it would cross racial and regional lines.

Thirdly, one candidate IS offering health care to the uninsured, particularly the poor. I should know, I am from the state which has the model plan that Obamacare is based on. Because of this, I have received low-cost subsidized insurance when I could afford it (but had a relatively low salary) and now completely free insurance because I'm low-income (student).

Obamacare might not be the best thing ever, but it is going to provide free or low-cost insurance plans to the millions who need it. It seems this truth has been lost in all the slander against the program.

 

[Ash Mahay]

Thanks for assuming what I do and don't know about American politics I shan't spell out my credentials because it always has a ring of "look at me, I'm better than you" about it, but thanks for the assumptions.

Spell them out if you want but Id be surprised if theyd impress me as much as you think on this issue.

One thing I'm interested about knowing is where all the working class Britons who regularly vote Tory fit into your analysis.

Well part of the thrust of the post is that our politics dont fit the same model as theirs so they arent directly compatible, or interchangeable.

 

[Ash Mahay]

I live in that county.

So did I for a very long time.

You've got the issues all wrong. It's about religious nationalism, hatred of poor people on benefits and hatred of foreigners and blacks.

Sure it is. In the same way that Obama & all Dems are islamic communists...

Have you not discovered how to spot propoganda yet?

I bet youre one of these people who think the tax protest movement was founded by Ron Paul in 2006 & for middle class conservatives too?

Sure, some people fit your frankly bigoted stereotypes but not all.

Then there's the other two-thirds of the population that doesn't bother to vote at all. The US is the most apathetic democracy in the world and our election participation is at its absolute worst for the local ballots.

Of the top of my head there was about a 65% turnout in '08 so those two thirds of yours will have to fit into 35%

 

[Pickman's model]

Of the top of my head there was about a 65% turnout in '08 so those two thirds of yours will have to fit into 35%

Your brain has rotted and you can no longer tell the difference between the total eligible electorate and the total registered electorate, and you don't seem to have noticed the increasingly large disenfranchisement of eg black men

 

[Ash Mahay]

hmm.

are you British or American? Vintage Paw has always seemed to me to have a pretty good grasp on American politics (and I'm American) and I also find a lot of flaws in your analysis.

While I agree with the main point, most of your examples are a bit weak, if not false.
First of all, the fact that the two parties stood for VERY different, almost opposite things in the past is neither here nor there. An interesting bit of history, perhaps, but one that has no relevance to what the two parties currently stand for.

Ok so the Dems are completely divorced from that past?

2010 - The anti-semitic James Traficant, you know, him of the denim suit & the worst fitting wig in history (seriously anyone unfamiliar with him needs to google that wig) running on a platform to repeal the the 16th amendment & for those who dont know about the constitution thats the right to levy an income tax & you dont have to be an economist to work out the imediate impact of that on the most vulnerable.

Actually, instead of listing a whole bunch of random Dem loonies lets just jump to the '88 run for Potus.

Remind us all of the Dem candidates?

I believe, if memory serves me right they included the multiple election winning Traficant, popular for a long time with the Democrats in Ohio & in fact may have lasted longer as a politician had his 7 year prison stay not got in the way...

Then we had the lovely Joe Biden, the man who entered politics to help his cash flow.

The wonderful Lyndon Larouche, slightly crazy is an understatement for extremely bigoted Lyndon, who inspired the works of such notable people as David Icke & Alex Jones.

& wasnt there that Louisiana statesman, former leader of the KKK & good buddy of Britains very own Nick Griffin, the bigoted David Duke.

Interestingly the winner of the New Hampshire vice presidential primary that year was... *drum roll*... current vp Biden? Nope. Ex-vp & self-proclaimed inventor of the internet Al Gore? No, the Dems of New Hampshire selected his grand wizardship David Duke.

Heres another pop question. Who was the last president to use a speech partly written by a former KKK member (but still active racist?)

Yep, you guessed it, the corrupt official currently running for a second term...

Secondly, there are a multitude of reasons why the poorest areas in the country, particularly the poorest rural, white counties in the US have tended to support the GOP.

Indeed there is, & poverty & survival is one of them for some.

It's clearly not just economic, or it would cross racial and regional lines.

To a degree it does but with the diversity of the states the conditions for people in different regions make life different for different people.

Its one of the things that some of those dirt poor voters are trying to explain to others.

With the completely different economies of different states a one size fits all policy doesnt always work & just because its not hurting those in the Hamptons it doesnt mean a policy isnt crippling the life out of someone, somewhere else.

Thirdly, one candidate IS offering health care to the uninsured, particularly the poor. I should know, I am from the state which has the model plan that Obamacare is based on. Because of this, I have received low-cost subsidized insurance when I could afford it (but had a relatively low salary) and now completely free insurance because I'm low-income (student).

The same man is cutting medicare by $716 bn which will effect a lot of people, including some poor (& particularly some elderly).

The same mans health care bill doesnt even include some of the poorest people in the country.

The same man whose health care bill, which was one of the worst bills in history (even most pro-healthcare people admit that), has to be paid for in a country where the average persons wage hasnt increased in real terms for 15 years (thanks to Clinton, Bush & Obama) & where some people are already living in terrible conditions of poverty.

Obamacare might not be the best thing ever, but it is going to provide free or low-cost insurance plans to the millions who need it. It seems this truth has been lost in all the slander against the program.

It might have been if it were ever the truth...

To "some" of those who need it? Yes, but not all & at a great cost.

You know Obamacare wasnt an act of kindness, but an attempt to win votes, dont you?

Thats why even the basic idea was changing so much before, during & after the election. It wasnt about providing healthcare, it was about motivating voters.

Im genuinely glad you are one of those who have benefited from it, I wish there was more, but please spare a thought for some of the poor who havent.

 

[Ash Mahay]

Your brain has rotted and you can no longer tell the difference between the total eligible electorate and the total registered electorate, and you don't seem to have noticed the increasingly large disenfranchisement of eg black men

Hello Mr 1982.

Did you check voter registrations & turn outs for '08, particularly amongst black people?

Come back to me when you have...

 

[Pickman's model]

Hello Mr 1982.

Did you check voter registrations & turn outs for '08, particularly amongst black people?

Come back to me when you have...

Save us both time and stick up a link to your source

 

[Ash Mahay]

Save us both time and stick up a link to your source

Sorry, youll have to ask your other mummy, or stop being lazy & look for yourself. Im not here at your beck & call. I dont do servant duties but your silly answer answers itself.

If you need a "link" (why do so many ignorant forum members across the internet assume all knowledge originates on the internet? Hello, turn of the computer & you might get to learn things too) then obviously you dont know the answer so what was the point in making your claim in the first place?

If you need help with your search try looking for a figure of around a 5 million increase in minority voters in 08 with about 2 million being black (of the top of my head).