Oops, somebody is reading revisionist history. Try reading Herbert Agar, "The Price of Union" or Charles & Mary Beard's "Economic History of the United States." I agree, however, that LBJ and his "Great Society" changed the fabric of politics. Up until then Democrats were ruled by people like former Alabama Gov. George Wallace. Much to Wallace's credit after he was shot, he changed his views on social justice.
See Sen. "Robert Byrd, the Early Years" as well as the second paragraph in the post to which you responded.
Trust and beleive If Obama goes into the Convention . .with the lead. . . and does not get the nomination The Black vote will fall out of the 'hip pocket so quickly . .. the Demos head will spin It will be yet another example of the goal line once again being MOVED when black folx final get close to it . . . Rocket River
you're sighting specific examples which is fine, I'm talking overall perspective as far as hispanics are concerned I think alot of hispanics who vote republican are business owners at least here in texas. this is just an assumption. alot are probably pro life catholics, and alot probably support the pro democracy policies in we have in regards to some of our neighbors south of us. but again that's just assumptions
Concur. It is not a misstep -- a gigantic misstep -- the Democrats are likely to make. But, if they did, to where would the black vote turn?
But why could a similar argument not be made that women will fall out of the hip pocket so quickly if Hillary is denied the nomination if she has the popular vote lead? You can't use intimidation or veiled threats of violence/extortion to help secure the nomination. That's just not how AMERICA works. We are a first world country.
black candidate, thuggery, extortion, first world country vs whatever. do you really think we don't know what you're getting at given your post history. i guess you just can't help. it doesn't even upset anymore, its comical to see you gasping at the thought of having a black president
I don't think it is as simple as that. I would be outraged and completely disavow the party because I understand the process better than your typical voter and the fact that they STOLE the nomination from any legitimate candidate would be a farce. They might lose the black vote, but they would sure as hell lose the INFORMED Liberal vote.
Again, where would the aggregate black vote go? To where would the informed liberal vote go? Remember, third parties don't work well in this country.
It might go nowhere, and thats just as damaging to the democratic party and those votes going republican.
Not voting is the greatest tragedy of all.....IMO. However, in the end, if the Democratic candidate is Hillary, the aggregate black vote and liberals in general will hold their respective noses and swallow her skanky brew.... but not me.
I agree with much of the NYT editorial. It's time for the undeclared Supers to end this thing. There's no logical reason not to declare for most of them. She's not going to win and the bitterness is getting out of hand.
I remember several posters, mc mark in particular, who were very happy about the extended Democratic rivalry because the Democratic Party would get extended publicity whereas McCain would get none. That rosy glow of exposure now seems to be over-exposed.
I agree...not voting would be the worst choice. It may be only a small percentage of voters who chose not to vote, but I don't think the democratic party can afford to lose any votes right now. It may come down to what Obama has to say about it. If he would be willing to endorse Hillary, even if it is as a "lesser of 2 evils", she could garner some of the disenfanchised vote.
