Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: presidio9; kimoajax; Southack
You are all aware of my opinion: I believe Condi is much more than Presidential material. But that shouldn't be what is open to discussion here. The best post on black voting patterns in some time was given above, and it explains something about why Condi would do better than Bush did in 2000, but only up to about 15 to 18 percent.

Kimoajax pointed out, and quite rightly, that people like Rice, Powell, or J.C. Watts got where they got by going outside of the "system" within the Community. Thus, it is easy for the black leadership to convince black voters not to trust them, as if someone like Rice is an "outsider". Running Rice nationally would be much easier than running Jindal in La., simply because her opponent would be Hillary and HRC has negative numbers that Condi Rice will never see. Condi would win men and split the women, as well. But let's not get sidetracked. The fact is, Jindal was the better man, but too many backcountry white folks didn't feel comfortable with a "dark skinned" man. Thankfully, Jindal has a future.

Southack needs to understand that just by proving that vouchers work, for instance, or that Affirmative Action is a non-event, does not mean that black Democrats will get struck by lightning on the Road to Damascus. Remember Kimos emphasis on group loyalty and the role of the Civil Rights leadership in enforcing group loyalty. Reason, and the examples of powerful black individuals who have, Horatio Alger-like, broken from the group arouse suspicion and envy, as opposed to admiration and pride.

They will never demand of white Democrats that they prove that their policies haven't done more harm than good!

To expect that black Democrats will break out of the group gestalt mind within the next thirty years based on a sudden realization that Republican policies are more effective for the Community is a fantasy, one that only white Republicans could entertain.

Ignore "outreach" programs into the black community. Return at once to an insistence on individual liberty and the rule of law. Take what you can, but expect nothing more. After all, we would dearly love to win the black vote, but it is our souls we must hold dear, and they must be for sale at no price. To be blunt, there are other voting blocs in the electorate.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

71 posted on 11/18/2003 6:52:18 PM PST by section9 (Major Kusanagi says, "Click on my pic and read my blog, or eat lead!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


There is a Wilder affect. Actually the effect is with racist democrats who tell people they are voting for the colored guy but don't. It affected several races. Wilder got hit with it, a famous case was Tom Bradley's race for governor here in California. I feel this is the same. Jindal was leading in the polls, only because some people refused to admit that they weren't going to vote for somebody based on his skin color.

It's not a national tragedy, epidemic, it just means that 90% of people are honest about who they are voting for in a race like this, and the 10% who feel that they should tell the posters they are voting for the non-white candidate, are full of crap.

Jindal probably needed a good 6% lead in the polls on election day to actually win.

72 posted on 11/18/2003 6:59:37 PM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson