Why did Colin Powell Endorse Obama?

[Ivytalk]

Powell is for Powell. He votes in his own best interest, and he perceives that voting for Barry will get him more press adulation (which he craves) than a vote for Mitt.

[ASUMountaineer]

If you want to say I am also race baiting, that's fine. The definition I'm looking at is:



I don't think that what I wrote and the way I wrote it fits that. But if you do I understand.

If I am, it doesn't change the fact the the Democrats reliably start race baiting at some point during any Presidential election. I think the first linked video is an example. Yes they put a Republican on display in order to do it in that case. But the other video I linked depicts something that happened earlier.

Republicans never, as far as I can tell, start it. The typical pattern is that Democrats start spreading the word that the Republican Party is the party of racists; thereby inciting people; particularly people of color.

Because its true!! So I guess we are going to look this over. When was telling the truth race baiting? But the same ole Repuke line of blaming Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson for this also. You ever wondered why these two men still have so called jobs??? Also, having people like Rush Limbaugh as the spokes person of the GOP does not help. Lord I misss Jack Kemp (May he rest in peace).

All it takes to get mrklean to post is a little race talk.

As for the OP, sure I suppose it's possible that Powell is only voting for Obama because he's black. I think it's more likely that the Republicans put up a horrible candidate and he's still angry about his time in the Bush administration. I think the bigger question is why anyone cares who Colin Powell endorses/votes for for President? Seriously, I don't understand why his "endorsement" would sway one single vote.

Are there racists in the Republican party? You betcha! (I stole that from AZ's girl)

Are there racists in the Democratic Party? Of course.

No race has a monopoly on racism, and neither does either party. Regardless of what partisan hacks will tell you.

BTW, kleany...it's probably time to retire the "Repuke" name, it's stale and has run its course.

[Wedgebuster]

Maybe no party has a monopoly on racism, but John St Wrong sure the hell does.

[ASUMountaineer]

Maybe no party has a monopoly on racism, but John St Wrong sure the hell does.

indeed.

[JohnStOnge]

The bottom line is that there are more people who are going to vote FOR Obama because he is Black than there are who are going to vote AGAINST him because he is Black.

The thing that guy said in the linked video suggesting that a whole bunch of Republicans are going to vote against Obama just because he's Black is nonsense. They'd vote against a White guy running as the Democratic Party candidate for President expressing the same philosophies Obama expresses as well. And if a Black guy was running as the Republican candidate expressing philosophies they argree with they'd vote for him.

[BlueHen86]

The bottom line is that there are more people who are going to vote FOR Obama because he is Black than there are who are going to vote AGAINST him because he is Black.

The thing that guy said in the linked video suggesting that a whole bunch of Republicans are going to vote against Obama just because he's Black is nonsense. They'd vote against a White guy running as the Democratic Party candidate for President expressing the same philosophies Obama expresses as well. And if a Black guy was running as the Republican candidate expressing philosophies they argree with they'd vote for him.

Really? How do you know this?

[death dealer]

I'm a racist. I hate Lithuanians. Bastards!

[Chizzang]

The bottom line is that there are more people who are going to vote FOR Obama because he is Black than there are who are going to vote AGAINST him because he is Black.

The thing that guy said in the linked video suggesting that a whole bunch of Republicans are going to vote against Obama just because he's Black is nonsense. They'd vote against a White guy running as the Democratic Party candidate for President expressing the same philosophies Obama expresses as well. And if a Black guy was running as the Republican candidate expressing philosophies they argree with they'd vote for him.

This is 100% conjecture and rubbish ^
John you have no idea - you simply are saying what makes you feel better
Simply tossing out there what YOU want to believe


sorry - nice try

[JohnStOnge]

Maybe no party has a monopoly on racism, but John St Wrong sure the hell does.

Whatever I have a monopoly or lack thereof on, race of candidate is not a factor in how I vote. For example:

Say in some future national election it's Allan West (current Florida Congressman who is Black) vs. George Miller (current California Congressman who is White). I would know I would be voting for West as soon as the match up was set and his being Black would give me no pause at all. That's because Alan West's philosophy of government is way more in line with mine than Miller's is.

And I think that is how it is with almost all people who vote Republican in elections. In percentage terms, few if any vote on the basis of the race of the candidate. I think a tiny fraction of 1% at most. Nevertheless, during every Presidential election, Democrat partisans begin the "racism" demagoguery at some point. And it's total crap.

If you think I'm race baiting by pointing out what the Democrats openly do so be it. Doesn't change the fact that when it comes to the two major political parties the Democrats race bait a whole lot more than the Republicans do. And it's not remotely close.

[Skjellyfetti]

Voting for someone of your own ethnic group isn't racism.

Voting against someone of a different ethnic group is.

Blacks have shown they will vote for white presidential candidates in heavy numbers as well.

[AZGrizFan]

Voting for someone of your own ethnic group isn't racism.

Voting against someone of a different ethnic group is.

Blacks have shown they will vote for white presidential candidates in heavy numbers as well.

Only if that candidate has a (D) after his name.

[JohnStOnge]

This is 100% conjecture and rubbish ^
John you have no idea - you simply are saying what makes you feel better
Simply tossing out there what YOU want to believe

Actually there is at least some basis beyond just thinking so as there was a question on the matter included during 2008 election exit polling (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/result ... al=USP00p6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Among respondents who said race was the "most important factor" 58% said they voted for Obama and 41% said they voted for McCain. Among those who said race was not a factor Obama still won but it was 51% to 46%.

Also, those who said that race was a factor at all voted Obama by 53% to 45%. It's pretty clear that, at least if you take those who responded to exit polls at their word, more people voted FOR Obama because of his race than voted against him because of it.

Now, obviously, it's reasonable to say that we have to be cautious about assuming everybody answers questions like that honestly when being polled. However, we also have anecdotal evidence in the form of predominantly White electorates voting for Blacks when those Blacks express conservative positions. Alan West is an example. His district is 75.6% White (higher than the national percentage) and 5.8% Black (lower than the national percentage).

Put it this way: There is a whole lot more reason in the data to believe what I said than there is to believe that some practically significant percentage of the people who voted against Obama in 2008 and will vote against him in 2012 voted against him and will vote against him because he is Black. There is absolutely no basis in the data for saying that.

[Skjellyfetti]

Only if that candidate has a (D) after his name.

They vote for politicians that actually address their issues. Just so happens that, nowadays, those happen to have a D next to their name.

Fuck, after George "ICONIC RACIST" Wallace did a 360 on racial issues... he won over 90% of the black vote his last term in office. He would have lost the election if blacks didn't turn out for him.

[AZGrizFan]

Only if that candidate has a (D) after his name.

They vote for politicians that actually address their issues. Just so happens that, nowadays, those happen to have a D next to their name.

MUST

NOT


RESPOND.


Too fucking easy.

[JohnStOnge]

Blacks have shown they will vote for white presidential candidates in heavy numbers as well.

Yes I know. The problem is that the most important thing to them appears to be that the candidate be a Democrat as they consistently vote by percentages in the 85% to 95% range for the Democratic candidate in national elections and usually somewhere close to 90%.

I have no doubt that if a the Republican Presidential Candidate was Black and the Democratic Presidential Candidate was White the White guy would get somewhere in the range of 85% to 95% of the Black vote because he is a Democrat.

I think that very few people vote for or against somebody based on race. In that exit poll I mentioned earlier, for example, only 2% of respondents said race was the most important factor. But to the extent that people do that I think it was a net benefit to Obama as more people voted for him because he was Black than against him because of that. And I think it will be a net benefit to him again. I think you will again see a percentage of Blacks vote for him than is slightly higher than the "typical" percentage the Democratic candidate gets (in 2008 it was 95%) and I think there are a lot of Whites who will vote for him because they think they're showing how "enlightened" they are by doing so. That second one I can't support with data except to say that Obama got a higher percentage of the White vote than Gore or Kerry did but I do believe it. I think it's one of those things that is obvious.

[Skjellyfetti]

I have no doubt that if a the Republican Presidential Candidate was Black and the Democratic Presidential Candidate was White the White guy would get somewhere in the range of 85% to 95% of the Black vote because he is a Democrat.

Doesn't that go against your hypotheses that blacks vote overwhelmingly for Obama because he's black? If they'd vote for a white Democrat over a black Republican, it's something other than race driving it... it's the issues. Democrats are in line with them on the issues... Republicans are against them.

If a Republican who supports issues important to black ran against a Democrat of any race who was opposed to issues important to blacks.... the Republican would win the black vote.

[JohnStOnge]

They vote for politicians that actually address their issues.

What issues? This should be fun.

It could get into an area I WILL race bait on:

If you are White, you are a fool to vote for a Democrat in a Presidential election. The reason is that Democrats have never gotten the majority of the White vote in a Presidential election since at least as far back as Nixon vs. Humphrey. Democrats have been competitive only because they not only get the majority of minority group votes...but because they get OVERWHELMING support among minority groups. And Blacks are at the extreme...consistently voting by 85% to 95% for Democrats.

So Democrats know where their bread is buttered. They know that they not only have maintain a majority of the vote among minority groups...they have to maintain an OVERWHELMING majority of the vote among minority groups to be competitive. So they will act accordingly when they were in power. And many times the way in which they will act will not be in your best interest if you are White.

Sorry. I know it's not politically correct to point out the obvious. But it IS the obvious and it IS the truth. If you're White and you vote Democrat you are screwing yourself.

Yes, that's race baiting. But it is accurate race baiting.

[JohnStOnge]

Doesn't that go against your hypotheses that blacks vote overwhelmingly for Obama because he's black?

I don't think I said that Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Obama because he is Black and if I did I misspoke. I do think some Blacks voted for and will vote for Obama because he is Black and I think that belief is supported by exit polling (usually vote around 90% for the Democratic candidate and in 2008 it was 95%). And I do believe Colin Powell endorsed Obama because he is Black.

[Bronco]

-
I have no idea why he was hanging around with this guy

[kalm]

They vote for politicians that actually address their issues.

What issues? This should be fun.

It could get into an area I WILL race bait on:

If you are White, you are a fool to vote for a Democrat in a Presidential election. The reason is that Democrats have never gotten the majority of the White vote in a Presidential election since at least as far back as Nixon vs. Humphrey. Democrats have been competitive only because they not only get the majority of minority group votes...but because they get OVERWHELMING support among minority groups. And Blacks are at the extreme...consistently voting by 85% to 95% for Democrats.

So Democrats know where their bread is buttered. They know that they not only have maintain a majority of the vote among minority groups...they have to maintain an OVERWHELMING majority of the vote among minority groups to be competitive. So they will act accordingly when they were in power. And many times the way in which they will act will not be in your best interest if you are White.

Sorry. I know it's not politically correct to point out the obvious. But it IS the obvious and it IS the truth. If you're White and you vote Democrat you are screwing yourself.

Yes, that's race baiting. But it is accurate race baiting.

It's posts like these that make it difficult to decide who's the better troll...you or SH.

[Skjellyfetti]

What issues?

Prison reform, education reform, voting rights, civil rights, health care, etc.

[death dealer]

I think most people vote predominantly for self-interest. There are exceptions, of course, which no doubt Jelly or Chizz will drag out ad nauseum. In the case of Powell, I believe one motivation for his initial support of Obama was the historical significance of his run. Now, I suspect a large motivation is the desire to see the legacy of the first AA POTUS to be perceived as a success rather than a failure, which a loss of reelection would tend to suggest. Is that his prime motivation? I'd like to think not. Powell isn't a wilting wallflower. I also suspect he doesn't like to be proven wrong.

[kalm]

I think most people vote predominantly for self-interest.

That's a question worthy of its own thread.

Honestly, I vote strictly for what I think provides the best future for my kids and the country. There's very little self interest involved.

[death dealer]

I think most people vote predominantly for self-interest.

That's a question worthy of its own thread.

Honestly, I vote strictly for what I think provides the best future for my kids and the country. There's very little self interest involved.

I would suggest you are voting self interest when voting what is best for your kids.

[kalm]

That's a question worthy of its own thread.

Honestly, I vote strictly for what I think provides the best future for my kids and the country. There's very little self interest involved.

I would suggest you are voting self interest when voting what is best for your kids.

Yeah I thought about that. My thing is, I think the greatest threat to my kid's success is a significant drop in the standard of living of the country as whole and a reduction in environmental standards.

Maybe I should be voting Stein as well.