Holy cow.
I missed this data point because it’s only in the video that goes with MSNBC’s story about Bush’s bad poll numbers.
Only 2% of black Americans approve of the job George Bush is doing as president, according to Tim Russert – the lowest that number has ever been since they’ve been doing polling.
Again, only 2% of black Americans – liberal, moderate, conservative, Democrat, and Republican – approve of George W. Bush as their president.
You gotta think the RNC is about to just give up its whole dog and pony show giving lip service to blacks. It’s funny that number came out because the Post has a story saying Maryland Dems are afraid of Michael Steele because he’s a black Republican. Now while we may have every Democrat in the state running for the open Senate seat (I may declare my candidacy any day now), I am pretty dismayed at the idea that blacks simply pick our candidates because they happen to be black, as if we aren’t fully capable of choosing on our own like everyone else.
But I gotta think that with his pal Bush only at 2% among blacks – and similarly unpopular across Maryland, Michael Steele is gonna wish we didn’t have pictures like this come campaign time.
The synchronicity of all that is happening in the political landscape is rather awe inspring.
So much has happened since the 2000 election that it is sometimes difficult to keep the big picture in view.
Note the petition which David Frum has put on the web to force Bush to de-nominate Miers. It cites the need for an ‘originalist’.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/petition/
He says we need someone who rules from the original ‘intent’ of the framers. Keep in mind that many of the framers were slave-owners who yearned to be free. They never intended (as many have speculated) that social values should ever change over time. They never intended for the interpretors of the Constitution to use the principles they wrote not as tablets in stone, but as a document which could adapt to social change. They didn’t recognize that the day might come when americans felt it was wrong to enslave people.
Note how the 2000 Florida recount was viewed by SCOTUS in light of an ‘orignialist’ perspective. (Caution-Suspect info from Socialists!)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/mcph-d12.shtml
We all know the result. Perhaps the word ‘orignialist’ means whatever an originalist wants it to mean.
Yeah, saw the Post article this morning – just had to shake my head. I’m sorry, I really don’t think the dems have anything to fear. In fact, I find the presumption that black folk will vote automatically for a black candidate regardless of party affiliation, more than a little patronizing and insulting. Then again, the WaPo have been a little flakey for sometime now.
Love that picture of Steele and Cheney… heck, all the dem candidates should make it part of their campaign literature!
Yes, I think the Republicans should give up on Blacks, too…
Since they’re going to be in power for many years to come, it should make the members of the underclass feel much better to know that the people who run the country really don’t care about them.
Think of all the money the government will save in benefits and anti – poverty programs, since black people won’t be voting for them, when they reduce spending to zero.
And — this is a small point — think of the money the White House will save by skipping the annual pilgrimage to the NAACP convention.
/Dripping sarcasm turned off.
By extrapolation, 98% of blacks are either ambivalent or do not approve of the job Bush is doing. Holy shit. You can’t get 98% of a sample to agree that the sky is blue.
Yes, Big Gay Al, it might give some of us pause about the utility of the survey.
But, on the other hand…
Frankie, why do you automatically associate anti-poverty and government benefits with black people?
You’ve just demonstrated WHY Cons are despised by the black community.
That and the fact that you cons won’t vote for a black person.
Special announcement: My name is not Frankie: never was , never will be. Even my friends don’t call me Frankie, and you are most certainly not my friend. If you continue to annoy me by using it, I will presume it is an unprovoked personal attack, and respond accordingly.
Loopy: put a sock in it… You’re not suggesting that no black people receive government benefits, are you? I used the term underclass deliberately
And I supposed you missed the “/Dripping sarcasm turned off,” too?
As to your third point, conservatives have voted, and will vote for a black person. Speak for yourself, bigot.
Yeah, when are Republicans going to become civilized enough to be able to vote a black person to Congress or statewide office in any state in the land?
Speaking of utility of the survey… (warning:.pdf)
The survey is of 803 adults. Not ‘Likely voters’ or even ‘registered voters’. ‘Adults’. The poll as such has almost NO utility when it comes to the views of the American electorate.
Notice also what is conspicously missing: party affiliation. Why doesn’t the poll break down response rates for Democrats, Republicans and Independants like every other poll known to man?
Yes, let’s all attack the poll intead of contemplating what it might mean.
Brilliant.
“That and the fact that you cons won’t vote for a black person”
And, by all means, please name some of the black people that I could’ve voted for, other than John Street, considering it goes without saying why someone wouldn’t vote for him.
I’ll make you a deal: If Lynn Swann is the Republican nominee for Governor, I’ll vote for him, even though I like Rendell and think he’s doing a good job.
Do we have a deal, or did you only mean “black person” with a “D” next to their name?
Really? Please point me to elected black Republicans in office. Take your time.
Also interesting how Oliver doesn’t mention “underclass” when speaking of blacks, but you automatically included it in your rebuttal.
You can’t be serious. Try Google sometime.
Wow – he’s within the margin of error of having -1% support. I’ll bet David Duke would poll better than that!
Try the House of Representatives, the Governor’s mansions, and the U.S. Senate sometime, JWG.
Nobody’s made a claim about the poll’s accuracy, just whether it maps onto likely voters or not. Get your own arguments straight. And bring some evidence next time.
Democratic Party in a nutshell: It doesn’t matter whether the poll is accurate or not: We like the conclusions so focus on that. “Fake but accurate!!!”
The “reality-based” community strikes again…
The House and Senate have seen 27 republican and 90 black democrats. Of those 117, only 5 have served in the Senate. Mosley-Braun (1993-1999) was the first black Democrat elected to the Senate. Obama is the first black male Democrat elected to the Senate.
I can go into the Governorships if you need further embarrassment.
Here’s a few…
Now, can America do better when it comes to electing officials who better represent America? Yes, indeed. But to claim that Republicans do not elect people of color (or blacks in particular) in any office in any state is plain stupidity.
zoe: No one is (at least, I am not) “attacking” the poll, instead of what it might mean. It has always been a “given” that large numbers of blacks vote Democratic — at least since Roosevelt’s time.
Oliver’s gleeful post suggests that Republicans have lost what little black support they did have (i.e., implying that now only 2% of blacks support Bush). I simply do not believe, were there an election held tomorrow, that Bush would get only 2% of the black vote.
So, either the poll is way off the mark, or Oliver’s inference is incorrect. I hope you’ll agree.
Two percent?
Hell, George Wallace would poll better than that. Maybe better still if he was alive.
TomY: Please tell me you’re not saying that if there were an election held tomorrow, you do believe that George Bush would only get 2% of the black vote.
Talk about “No evidence, no analysis.”
And, besides, I think the survey already took enough of a beating so that it can’t be interpreted as a valid representation of either ‘evidence’ or ‘analysis.’
I know the answer, but I’m wondering how much history you know…how many black Democratic governors have there been?
Can we look at Lt. Governors?
My point was statewide office and Congress, JWG, not councilmen, mayors, and representatives to state houses. But I do stand corrected. The Republican party has elected 4 black people to statewide office or Congress since 1945 22 of the 27 are from before 1900, way before Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan made their peace with Southern racists. Since then, there was Melvyn Evans who represented the progressive Virgin Islanders in the seventies, Gary Franks from Connecticut, and of course, J.C. Watts of Oklahoma. It is to the great credit of Massachussetts Republicans that they sent Edward Brooke to the Senate in the seventies, something I d never heard about before. So again, that s 4 since 1945, all from the North, Midwest, and Indian territory. Have there been any black Republican governors since 1945?.
So I m going to narrow my attack this way: Republican Southerners have elected no black people to statewide office or Congress since 1900. Nationally, Republicans find it really, really hard to elect blacks even 0.5% of the time. This is because they are tolerant of and dependent on racists to fill the party ranks.
The answer is no, isn’t it? Can we look at how Republicans are utterly dependent on racism in the South to win their majorities in Congress and in the electoral college?
Umm, 90 blacks have been elected by Democrats in 100 years, with the first Senator in the 90s. Compared to how many thousands of congressional seats in the same time frame? Not much of a percentage to be proud of, is it?
“I simply do not believe”
No evidence, no analysis. Just your wild-eyed assertions, Frank, as always.
(Real) is the sound of Frank getting ready to move goalposts.
This reminds me of the game my friends and I always play when the Republican Convention is on TV every four years.
You have to drink whenever the camera shows a black face. After ten minutes it becomes obvious that it’s just the same five people being shown over and over again, but the camera will keep zooming in on them to create the impression that there are more of them than there really are. I guess since they all look alike to Republicans, the trick is effective and they end up believing their Party is “diverse” (as evidenced by Oliver’s own house trolls here).
Anyway, I was wondering, if 1% represents those folks we see on TV, where does the other 1% come from to make up 2%? Any theories?
TomY: You’re welcome to look, if you choose. If you find any (real) connection between racism and Republican victories in the South, I’d love to read all about it.
You have to drink whenever the camera shows a black face. After ten minutes it becomes obvious that it s just the same five people being shown over and over again
Sounds like you’re drinking water. Try alcohol next time and it won’t be so obvious.
Which part has you thrown off, TomY? The part about finding a real connection between southern racism and Republican victories
SadieBL What I was wondering was if you were of the fact so little of your post made any sense.
Well Frank, I know it’s difficult for you to follow human speech, but sometimes we do like to talk to each other. If this is a problem for you, maybe you should go somewhere else for a while.
Think of all the money the government will save in benefits and anti – poverty programs,
Classic Freudian slip.
SadieB: I believe the word you were groping for was “language” not “speech”, as we have yet to speak to each other.
Aside from your nonsensical (if not mythical) game {which contains the stupid non sequitur: “I guess since they all look alike to Republicans, the trick is effective and they end up believing their Party is ‘diverse’. Which trick? The cameraman’s trick? How are people on the convention floor made aware of the cameraman’s trick. And, who says the cameramen (camerapersons?) are Republican? }, your post says this: “Anyway, I was wondering, if 1% represents those folks we see on TV, where does the other 1% come from to make up 2%? Any theories?”
Let’s see if we can make sense of this, SadieB: 1% of the 5 blacks at the convention represent the blacks that support Bush (who got 11% of the black vote in 2004), then we get .05 blacks or one black person a tenth the size of Gary Coleman. Where’s the the other .095 of a black person? Lou Costello would say, “I don’t know.” Bud Abbott would say, “Third base.”
You’ve got the convention confused with the so – called general population represented by the 803 people in a poll. Confusing “speech” with “language” may be the least of your problems.
And, leo, once again your non – contributory, unsolicited, unwarranted xritique of my post makes no sense… What Freudian slip? I guess you didn’t read the whole thing, either, like that idiot Loopy Velez.
No, Frank. I do get it. It’s too bad you don’t get it. I don’t think you ever will
TomY:
Since you didn’t bother to answer my question about black governors…I’ll ask again: How many black Democratic governors have there been? (Bonus question: What party affiliation does he now claim?)
You seem to have this impression that the Democratic party has some sort of electoral superiority in the election of African Americans, and as evidence you point out how few blacks have been elected by Republicans.
Pot, meet kettle.
The Democratic record is just slightly less dismal for electing blacks.
Oh, poor me, leo feels sorry for me ‘cuz I lack understanding… Thank you, Leo, oh, thank you, thank you, thank you…
What you really mean (yes, I’m a mind reader like you and JadeGold the Putz), is that you can’t explain yourself, so you want me to decipher you for you. If you can’t communicate any better than that, you’ll get no help from me.
See, all your quasi – cryptic logorrhea is much more bullshit than cryptic. I have no desire to decipher the Semanticleo Code when all it does is translate jibberish into bullshit.
“You seem to have this impression that the Democratic party has some sort of electoral superiority in the election of African Americans, and as evidence you point out how few blacks have been elected by Republicans.”
I don’t see how we disagree, JW. Yes, the Democratic party has elected enormously more blacks to statewide office and Congress than REpublicans have. Almost all black republicans that managed to get elected as Republicans did so in the South during reconstuction, when white conservatives weren’t voting — so it’s an aberration. Now that Southern racists dominate your party, Republicans don’t elect black people. Glad we agree.
You know? You’re right twice this week!!!
All those ‘indecipherable metaphors’, I’ve been holding back to see if a
simpler version of English was more to your liking, has obviously been an
exercise in futility for the both of us. All the restrictions have been
bottling up in me because I couldn’t throw in a little prose , here and there,
just to break up the monotony.
In addtion, now my clarity having been masterfully surveyed by the
monarch of mediocrity, Fran DiSalle, I am found wanting.
A’hm gonna have ta git that bullshitty ol’ ‘quasi-cryptic logorrhea” goin’
agin.
Git ‘em Sadie !!!!!!
“And, leo, once again your non – contributory, unsolicited, unwarranted xritique of my post makes no sense”
Now isn’t the pot calling the kettle black! Not once on this blog have I ever heard anyone say, “I wonder what Frank thinks about this” or “can we get an opinion from Frank?”
Yet here you are, 24/7, chiming in on things you don’t know anything about, blathering on and on and and “critiquing” people’s posts by pretending to misunderstand them. Or maybe you really do misunderstand, maybe you really are that simple-minded? If so, you would do much better to keep your half-formed analyses to yourself.
Don’t you have relatives to bore? Or co-workers or something? Couldn’t you just go to a nearby bar and annoy people there for a change? What makes us so lucky to be the recipients of so much of your spare time and crackpot opinions?
Oy, In hindsight, I think that didn’t come out as I had meant. I only meant that if you drank a beer each time they tried to show an African American on camera, you would quickly become so sh*tfaced you wouldn’t be able to see anything very well.
Democrats elect hardly any blacks to office. Multiplying a small number by another small number (i.e. Democrats elect X times more blacks than Republicans) doesn’t get you a very big number in return.
Far less than 1% of our elected officials are black. That is the point you don’t seem to get. (You also continue to avoid answering my question about black governors.) Blacks who do get elected rarely serve constituents who are not predominately black.
Republicans are not my party. Additionally, this is the kind of slander that prevents Democrats from winning in the south. Lastly, please show me how other areas of our country are electing black state officials any differently than “the south.” Black people hardly get elected ANYWHERE. Wake up.
Frankie’s argument seems to be ‘hey, AWOL George got 11% of the black vote once.’
As if this is some monumental achievement.
11%.
cypher — beer, hell. This is the Republican National Convention we’re talking about. The only way to endure watching something like that is vodka shots.
I thought all morning about this post, and I’ve decided to go ahead.
SadieB: Not once on this blog have I ever heard anyone say, I wonder what Frank thinks about this or can we get an opinion from Frank?
Not once have I ever heard anyone say that about anyone. So I guess I’m in good company.
SadieB: I am here for two reasons, and two reasons only:
1) Because liberals are incredibly arrogant. They assume they have a lock on the truth that is so firm, that evidence is no longer required. Their world is full of “givens”: Bush is evil, Rove is evil, Cheney really runs things, we invaded Iraq for oil, etc., etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum. One of the things I do here is ask for evidence. I get called stupid a lot because I’m supposed to “know” the liberal talking points are true, and asking for evidence is considered to be “trolling” – by those self – same liberals, anyway. What I do here is try to present some countervailing point to the “given.” Often, the source is ridiculed, as if, somehow, the right wing doesn’t know when the sun rises and sets until they read the New York Times’ weather report. Often, I am accused of being obsessed with “links” Why? Because I can find them and the lefties can’t? There’s plenty of information on the ‘Net. If I were so inclined, I could find both sides of an argument in a few minutes.
2) Liberals have an attitude that they “know” the “truth”, whereas conservatives have benighted “opinions.” In their eyes, the difference between a liberal and a conservative is education. I wish I had a dollar for every time I ws told I should read some history or talk to a black person. Once, some one asked me, “Have you ever been inside a Section 8 apartment?” (I’ve lived in one for about 15 years). “Were you ever in the military?” (Army, four years). The point is that those questions translate (in my mind) into “If you only knew whwt we knew, you would believe what we believe.” But I do know what they know, but I also know something else, and I believe something else.
So don’t fall into the pit where JadeGold the Putz, Loopy Velez, and Leo the Lyin’ King are. Stand on your own two feet, argue with me all you want — you can even tell me I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about — after all, a really good argument has to bring that up at least once, right?
Just stick to the topic, and stay off the irrelevant, unnecessary, unknown, personal side of me. Save that for JadeGold the Putz, Loopy Velez, and Leo the Lyin’ King.
>>In their eyes, the difference between a liberal and a conservative is education.
Yes, Frank. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Even on you, and the other 59,000,000 people who voted for the dumb guy.
As Dan Quayle (R) once said…”What a waste it is to lose one’s mind, or not to have a mind is being very wasteful.”
Or this gem, from Mr. 40% approval, George W. Bush: ‘Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?’
Sometimes, I actually think that our brains (liberals vs. conservatives) are wired differently. It would be an interesting study that would not stand a chance of getting funded.
I do urge you to cheer up. It’s just politics, big F.
Despite Frank’s long whine/rant, I vow that for the next 3 months, I will refrain from calling Frank, or any other right leaning person, dumb.
JK
You’ll never make it, you arrogant Nazi prick. You didn’t misunderstand my post, you’re just denying that you’re an elitist snob, who thinks he’s smarter than every single person who voted for Bush. Anybody who thought that would have to be an idiot. I suspect you’re so insecure about your intelligence you make yourself believe you’re really smart, because it’s painful to think that there may people smarter than you.
I know there are people who are smarter than I am. Neither one of them is you. Hehe.
What passes for evidence of dumbness in the “liberal court”: To misstatements by two different people. Yes, now I’m convinced, Conservatives are dumb, all right!
>>You ll never make it, you arrogant Nazi prick. You didn t misunderstand my post, you re just denying that you re an elitist snob, who thinks he s smarter than every single person who voted for Bush.
Yes, I do think I am smarter than every single person who voted for Bush. It’s a deeply held conviction.
Frank…it’s painful to think that there are people smarter than me. However, it’s a burden I must bear for all humankind.
Frank…check your grammar/punctiation on that last paragraph you wrote. At quick glance I find 6 errors. Pretty amazing.
I rest my case.
JK
JK: You arrogant Nazi prick. I already made my case.
Frank — you say you have two points but they are really the same one with a slight change in wording.
Even worse, your sole point, that “liberals are arrogant/liberals think they know the truth” is a very weak one, considering the level of arrogance displayed by yourself and the other conservatives who visit this site.
And JK, I think you are right about liberal and conservative brains. I have read about this. Apparently researchers have found that people who hold conservative viewpoints tend to spend more time in their hindbrains, while liberals rely more on their forebrains to navigate the world.
It’s the difference between the reptilian fight-or-flight, patrol territory, secure resources approach and the mammalian one which allows for communication and cooperation between individuals.
SadieB: I’m sorry you can’t see the difference. But, if, as you say, it boils down to “liberals are arriogant,” I’ll buy that. As for conservatives being arrogant, I, for one, don’t speak for all conservatives, or even the conservatives on this blog.
As for the limbic vs. forebrain “theory”, it is just that — a theory. Since it is not even universally accepted that there is such a thing as “mammalian thinking” versus “reptilian thinking”, it can hardly be credible that one ideological preference uses one kind of thinking, while those with another ideological preference use another.
You might be referring to a study done at Berkeley, of all places, that indicated (surprise, surprise!) that liberals had oodles and oodles of positive traits, while conservatives had oodles and oodles of negative traits. That so-called study was laughable.