Why Democrats will never nominate a white person again for POTUS

We need to come to grips with what the democrats are doing. They have cracked the code and the implications for our country are too terrible to contemplate. The democrats are about power, first and foremost. They could care less who sits in the White House. As long as they can get their liberal, socialist agenda enacted, they are fine with whomever occupied the White House.

The democrats have cracked the code. They know they will get 90% plus of the black vote, 70% plus of the hispanice vote, and 40% or so of the white vote. With the changing demographics in our country, if the democrats continue to nominate black candidates, they can be assured of winning because they know that the so called 'swing states' like Wi. NC, Va., Fl., and Oh are easily won if the black turnout is juiced up by nominating a black candidate.

If we look at Wisconsin for example, even though Republicans WON an increasing majority in both the state assembly, state senate, AND re-elected the FIVE Republican Congress members whioh is more than the Three Democrat members who we have, they still trounced Romney in the POTUS election and elected the MOST liberal member of Congress to the US Senate.

How did they accomplish this? Only five months ago, Scott Walker won his recall 53-47. Obama won the state easily by getting the inner city black and hispanics to turn out and vote big for him.

Just like I predicted on FR before the election, if the votes were under 2.75 million Romney would probably win. The votes were over 3 million and Romney lost by 200k votes. The entire difference was made up by increased minority and youth voters.

We need to recognize the reality of the demographics and adjust accordingly. By that I mean we have three choices.

1. Go after the single female vote by somehow moderating the stance on contraception.

3. Go after the black vote. How we do this without offering reparations I am not sure. All I know is that even if we nominate a black candidate for POTUS or VP it would probably not make a bit of difference because the black community is hooked on the entitlements the Democrats have showered on them. From SNAP to Obama phones, to section 8 housing, the blacks are like crack addicts, they have given up and become wards of the state.

I wish I had another solution, but the reality of what the democrats are doing to keep power hit me like a ton of bricks this morning. Unless we figure out a way to counter the demographic trends, we can kiss the White House goodbye.

One last point, I can predict right now that the next nominee for POTUS the democrats will put up is probably Deval Patrick, Obama's old buddy from Chicago who is Gov. of Mass.

A white liberal would NOT have won the election yesterday. I disagreed with my friends and family in 08 and in this election anytime they mentioned race being a factor in Obama’s favor. It hit me today that I have been completely wrong. AA turned out for him and Got out the vote both times (more in 2012 than in 2008 in some states). They did not turn out in 2010 or in the Scott Walker recall election because they did not care about those elections. They only cared about electing and re-electing Obama. I can’t blame them for wanting a President who is black. I can blame them for not even knowing who is running mate is, much less even understanding his freakin’ policies.

My view is different. Hispanics didn’t go for Obama due to “immigration” - they went for Obama over his class war rhetoric.

We have imported into the USA the lowest classes of Mexican and South American societies. These countries have out-sourced their social welfare and education spending for their lowest classes to the United States Govt. These people were raised in societies that only know socialism, and they are extremely class-conscious.

Obamas class-warfare rhetoric was the best strategy for these people.

why do you think democracy was done a disservice because *more* eligible voters turned out? you think democracy would have been better served if only white males were allowed to vote? were you aware that your political ideology lost world war 2 more than half a century ago? face it, the anglo-saxon, or aryan if you’d prefer, male dominant world is gone and isn’t coming back. oh and for those of you considering moving to canada after the election results; fuck off, we don’t want you. obama’s too conservative to get elected in canada. i don’t know if you’ve been paying attention at all but we’re actually a socialist country. trudeau, one of our greatest prime ministers, wrote glasnost and perestroika with the soviet ambassador to canada in the 80s. true story.

Unfortunately, it’s just too late. Obama will grant citizenship to tens of millions of illegal aliens before the end of his second term, and that will be the foundation for turning America into a one-party state. The illegal aliens will owe everything to the Democratic Party, and they and their children and their grandchildren will vote straight ticket Democrat for decades to come. Blacks are already doing it, and then you add to that the tens of millions who will be relying on the federal government for their health care, and the Dems have a permanent lock. It’s over.

I believe the point is not about excluding voters. The point is that western democracy will work when voters vote for political ideas and proven leadership and experience rather than skin color.

It will begin to break down when they do not. What is under discussion is that in the last election there was an element of pride that all races voted for a minority candidate. It was understandable that an inexperienced candidate would gain a lot of enthusiasm for breaking a barrier.

In this election the candidate no longer had no history, but rather a history of failure and lack of regard for traditional separation of power under the Constitution. This apparently had no effect on the racial demographic from which he came.

If our leadership roles begin to be, like the third world, just a way for various tribes to gain powers over the others, this is a big step down from ‘who will best lead our unified country’.

Of course you knew this because you knew that because you are a racist liberal idiot.

I believe the point is not about excluding voters. The point is that western democracy will work when voters vote for political ideas and proven leadership and experience rather than skin color.

If our leadership roles begin to be, like the third world, just a way for various tribes to gain powers over the others, this is a big step down from ‘who will best lead our unified country’.

Of course you knew this because that because you are a racist liberal idiot.

Obama didn't win in 2008 because he brought in the Black vote. Any Democrat wins over 90% of the African-American vote in a two candidate race. They didn't need a Black or half-Black candidate on the ticket to pull in those numbers. Parties don't usually go out of their way to choose a nominee from a group that already gives them over 90% of their votes.

Where race did help Obama was with younger or college educated White voters who felt good and noble about voting for a Black candidate -- either because they felt particularly virtuous themselves, or because they thought electing an African-American president would usher in a new and better age.

Those feelings were a lot weaker in 2012, and they'll be weaker still in 2016 and 2020. A lot of those young or upper middle class White voters aren't going make a special effort for a mediocre nonentity like Deval Patrick simply because of his race. The novelty is wearing off, and with it the feeling that electing a Black president is going to symbolize much or solve anything. I also don't see whiz kid Corey Booker going very far. Obama has played that card (whether or not he had a right to) and it will be hard to use it any time soon.

Latinos are a different story. They don't all vote for the same party. Having a Hispanic on the ticket -- at the top of the ticket -- will bring in Latinos who don't vote Democrat. It might bring in a lot of younger voters, White (or Asian) liberals, and people who don't usually vote, just as Obama did in 2008.

Latino numbers and share of the population are growing and Democrats are likely to stake a lot on holding on to that demographic. One problem with scenarios like yours, though, is that there's some rivalry between minority groups (between Blacks and Hispanics, say) and even within them (between Hispanics of various national origins), so the idea that politics will forever focus on Whites against non-Whites probably isn't realistic.

There non-white choices for 2016 aren’t very good.

Patrick would not win.

And yes I know we’re down and depressed but that guy is a clown who never would have been elected Governor if he wasn’t from a super liberal state like MA. I doubt he could even win the nomination. He doesn’t have the power of hypnosis that Osama seems to have over stupid white people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.