Considering the fact that Obama ran against Alan Keyes to become a Senator, no, I don't think a black candidate would have made a difference for the GOP.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Why Didn't The Republicans Just Put Forward A Black Nominee?
Poll
Should The Republicans Have Put Forward A Black Presidential Nominee?
| Yes - That Would Have Won Them The Election | 17% | 17% - 9 | ||||
| No - It Wouldn't Have Made Much Difference | 82% | 82% - 42 | ||||
| Total: 51 | ||||||
do you guys not believe you have the "right" president then ?
Me too. Europe ftw. *hides in EU server*usmarine wrote:
wow...i need to move to europe then.Braddock wrote:
as Europeans he's doing okay so far by our expectations.
but seriously, if the GOP ran a black candidate, they would alienate about 40% or more of their voter base. No offense, but Republicans have a racist track record.
Depends, if you like state-obsessed, Marxist socialist politics wrapped in a gown of corruption, O is cool.
It would have taken some of the piss out of his Change wings but unless they had a Conservative Obama then no they would have still lost.
Wouldn't have made any difference. The media would never had treated a black conservative as a rockstar like they do Obama.
Meet Michael Steele. Current chairman of the RNC
Last edited by SonderKommando (2009-03-31 18:14:37)
they should, could open up some new doors
yes this guy!!! let me find his video
I think somebody is bitter about losing to Obama few years back.
I do. And he is.ATG wrote:
Depends, if you like state-obsessed, Marxist socialist politics wrapped in a gown of corruption, O is cool.
lol google ads : Do you feel safe with Bush as president?
bit late amirite?
bit late amirite?
I think the poll should be refixed, example: If Republicans had a black President it would of helped them racially with voter turnouts.
This election has had a record turnout with blacks voting, and everyone should know why as well. Barack fills two characteristics that blacks like. He would be the first black President, and he is partisan towards a nanny state for blacks, where the government takes care of the community. A lot of blacks seems to rely on big government to take care of them regardless. Someone with their color and has been shown with great political media publicity is a definite likeness towards what they want in power.
The thing is it would of been an interesting race if someone like Clarence Thomas ran instead of Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes actually ran for the constitutional party after the presidential nominations. Alan is far too conservative. Alan even believes the old ways that state delegates should elect the President not the people. Alan keyes isn't too widely known, but Clarence Thomas is. Clarence is a good conservative individual that the Republican party respects, and would have regular black people like the old generation respect as well. Clarence, I believe is also a well spoken charismatic individual rather than Keyes. Alan wasn't popular during the election. he wasn't as much in the debates and as well funded as the other candidates were. He only shows up for a few adds and debates and also starred in Borat (lol at the scene). Also even Sharpton was running, but wasn't as popular as Hillary and Barack and some of the other white candidates.
Despite those nominations for the Republican party still Barack would of had the upper hand with blacks because his policy, and the media likening his policies. Forming him as a hip President with a younger generation, and a very charismatic political aura (much like Clinton had probably even better than Clinton) to attract everyone.
This election has had a record turnout with blacks voting, and everyone should know why as well. Barack fills two characteristics that blacks like. He would be the first black President, and he is partisan towards a nanny state for blacks, where the government takes care of the community. A lot of blacks seems to rely on big government to take care of them regardless. Someone with their color and has been shown with great political media publicity is a definite likeness towards what they want in power.
The thing is it would of been an interesting race if someone like Clarence Thomas ran instead of Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes actually ran for the constitutional party after the presidential nominations. Alan is far too conservative. Alan even believes the old ways that state delegates should elect the President not the people. Alan keyes isn't too widely known, but Clarence Thomas is. Clarence is a good conservative individual that the Republican party respects, and would have regular black people like the old generation respect as well. Clarence, I believe is also a well spoken charismatic individual rather than Keyes. Alan wasn't popular during the election. he wasn't as much in the debates and as well funded as the other candidates were. He only shows up for a few adds and debates and also starred in Borat (lol at the scene). Also even Sharpton was running, but wasn't as popular as Hillary and Barack and some of the other white candidates.
Despite those nominations for the Republican party still Barack would of had the upper hand with blacks because his policy, and the media likening his policies. Forming him as a hip President with a younger generation, and a very charismatic political aura (much like Clinton had probably even better than Clinton) to attract everyone.
Illinois is a heavily Democratic state though overall. Not saying your overall point is bad. Just giving some hand in for Keyes.Turquoise wrote:
Considering the fact that Obama ran against Alan Keyes to become a Senator, no, I don't think a black candidate would have made a difference for the GOP.
Thats it... I'm calling Chris Hansen from Dateline...lolDonFck wrote:
I have some Spongebob sheets with your name on them for my sofabed.usmarine wrote:
hmmm... fluff the pillows dear sir.DonFck wrote:
New legislation should soon allow refugees to work before being granted asylum. If you get a working visa, you can claim unemployment benefits until you find a job. The govt won't hook you up with a job, but they will look for one suitable for you when you have registered yourself as an unemployed jobseeker (compulsary if you want unemployment benefits).
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-03-31 20:41:20)
Love is the answer
This Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watts.JPG
Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watts.JPG
Edit:
The Democraps seem to be hung up on race, they have to keep their precious black vote or they will be sorely disadvantaged. They continue to bring up issues of slavery and things dealt with at least about in the '60s-'70s. Guy @ machosauceproductions Youtube Channel talks about it in his vvideo "CPACKIN'". The Civil War ended 148 years ago FFS!but seriously, if the GOP ran a black candidate, they would alienate about 40% or more of their voter base. No offense, but Republicans have a racist track record.
Last edited by nickb64 (2009-03-31 21:54:54)
Democrats really don't give a damn about minorities they just like they're promised votes. If the GOP could get it's act together and push some minority candidates they could really start to take back some often blue areas. But for some reason those often tolerant democrats are quick to call any blacks who are with the GOP traitors, uncle toms, or house slaves.nickb64 wrote:
This Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watts.JPG
Edit:The Democraps seem to be hung up on race, they have to keep their precious black vote or they will be sorely disadvantaged. They continue to bring up issues of slavery and things dealt with at least about in the '60s-'70s. Guy @ machosauceproductions Youtube Channel talks about it in his vvideo "CPACKIN'". The Civil War ended 148 years ago FFS!but seriously, if the GOP ran a black candidate, they would alienate about 40% or more of their voter base. No offense, but Republicans have a racist track record.
Yes I know the last two are kinda the same.
Why do they have to push a minority candidate? If they ran smarter policies that benefit the minorities the runners ethnicity would be irrelevant.
It wasn't about race, it was about not being a total asshat.
Fuck Israel
Thank you. Lowing has been consistently trying to say his policies had absolutely nothing to do with him winning the election.Warhammer wrote:
I think the poll should be refixed, example: If Republicans had a black President it would of helped them racially with voter turnouts.
This election has had a record turnout with blacks voting, and everyone should know why as well. Barack fills two characteristics that blacks like. He would be the first black President, and he is partisan towards a nanny state for blacks, where the government takes care of the community. A lot of blacks seems to rely on big government to take care of them regardless. Someone with their color and has been shown with great political media publicity is a definite likeness towards what they want in power.
The thing is it would of been an interesting race if someone like Clarence Thomas ran instead of Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes actually ran for the constitutional party after the presidential nominations. Alan is far too conservative. Alan even believes the old ways that state delegates should elect the President not the people. Alan keyes isn't too widely known, but Clarence Thomas is. Clarence is a good conservative individual that the Republican party respects, and would have regular black people like the old generation respect as well. Clarence, I believe is also a well spoken charismatic individual rather than Keyes. Alan wasn't popular during the election. he wasn't as much in the debates and as well funded as the other candidates were. He only shows up for a few adds and debates and also starred in Borat (lol at the scene). Also even Sharpton was running, but wasn't as popular as Hillary and Barack and some of the other white candidates.
Despite those nominations for the Republican party still Barack would of had the upper hand with blacks because his policy, and the media likening his policies. Forming him as a hip President with a younger generation, and a very charismatic political aura (much like Clinton had probably even better than Clinton) to attract everyone.
Yes, but the policies blacks like tick me off. You know a lot of them like the welfare state, which it shouldn't be. It should be trying to be responsible on your own and not rely on the government. Otherwise taxpayers money go to some sleazy pricks that should be doing otherwise, not be encouraged in their usual activities.
Has Oprah been mentioned yet?
Was going to in my first comment, but I include her as the media considering she is a well known person and have influence to some.AussieReaper wrote:
Has Oprah been mentioned yet?
Im telling you guys they are grooming Michael Steele, he's even blacker than Obama... Well I think I'M blacker than Obama.
Sweeping statement-o-rama!Warhammer wrote:
Yes, but the policies blacks like tick me off. You know a lot of them like the welfare state, which it shouldn't be. It should be trying to be responsible on your own and not rely on the government. Otherwise taxpayers money go to some sleazy pricks that should be doing otherwise, not be encouraged in their usual activities.
Sorry Braddock "change", last I looked, is not a policy.Braddock wrote:
Thank you. Lowing has been consistently trying to say his policies had absolutely nothing to do with him winning the election.Warhammer wrote:
I think the poll should be refixed, example: If Republicans had a black President it would of helped them racially with voter turnouts.
This election has had a record turnout with blacks voting, and everyone should know why as well. Barack fills two characteristics that blacks like. He would be the first black President, and he is partisan towards a nanny state for blacks, where the government takes care of the community. A lot of blacks seems to rely on big government to take care of them regardless. Someone with their color and has been shown with great political media publicity is a definite likeness towards what they want in power.
The thing is it would of been an interesting race if someone like Clarence Thomas ran instead of Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes actually ran for the constitutional party after the presidential nominations. Alan is far too conservative. Alan even believes the old ways that state delegates should elect the President not the people. Alan keyes isn't too widely known, but Clarence Thomas is. Clarence is a good conservative individual that the Republican party respects, and would have regular black people like the old generation respect as well. Clarence, I believe is also a well spoken charismatic individual rather than Keyes. Alan wasn't popular during the election. he wasn't as much in the debates and as well funded as the other candidates were. He only shows up for a few adds and debates and also starred in Borat (lol at the scene). Also even Sharpton was running, but wasn't as popular as Hillary and Barack and some of the other white candidates.
Despite those nominations for the Republican party still Barack would of had the upper hand with blacks because his policy, and the media likening his policies. Forming him as a hip President with a younger generation, and a very charismatic political aura (much like Clinton had probably even better than Clinton) to attract everyone.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Why Didn't The Republicans Just Put Forward A Black Nominee?