|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/08/04 - 10:20 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | | I never said it was your point, I was using it to make mine. Ease up |
Don't personalize it. Generalizations are a big barrier to meaningful dialogue.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:09 Post subject:
90 % is a pretty strong argument wouldn't you say.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:12 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | | 90 % is a pretty strong argument wouldn't you say. |
90% of what?
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:13 Post subject:
blacks voting democrat.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:19 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | | blacks voting democrat. |
I don't know that figure for sure. If you say it's true I'm sure it is. But that doesn't help us understand why black people voted the way they did, and the generalizations made earlier also don't help us understand.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:19 Post subject:
My dad gave me a theory this weekend. He was actually explaning why he thinks people were voting for Bush because of 'moral values', but I think it could make sense on the rural/urban argument too. He says that Hollywood has for the most part aligned itself with the democrats and people like my dad for the most part see Hollywood as amoral. My dad can't relate to Ashton Kutcher or Bruce Springsteen. My dad CAN relate to (what appears to be) honest, hard working, Christian principles in action. I thought this to be a VERY interesting perspective, that Hollywood has hurt Democrats.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 14:30 Post subject:
well.....I just rec'd a PM from someone with a link to this thread.
here it is
. You have a problem with me? Discuss it with me as an adult, not 1) in an open forum and 2) when I'm not around. There are many things you say that I disagree with, but I would never be so callous as to attack you, in a roundabout way or otherwise, publicly.
obviously, this person thinks when I stated "ask an educated person" that it must mean them???? I have no idea, but if so.......it explains the blue vs red to me very well
And yes.......I'm putting this out on an open forum.....because maybe someone can help me see where I've called out an individual on this thread. I must not be as edumacated as I thought, because I cannot figure it out.
|
|
|
|
|
AlaninTX
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 6582
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 14:37 Post subject:
Ok, what is said in PM needs to stay in PM. We need not call one another out in the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 14:42 Post subject:
| AlaninTX wrote: | | Ok, what is said in PM needs to stay in PM. We need not call one another out in the forum. |
I didn't name a person, I honestly want to know how I individualized a person in this thread and was hoping that someone can help me show how any comment on this thread would lead to someone believing it was a personal attack.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 15:56 Post subject:
OK, back to some 'non-personalized' voting analysis 
Of course certain blocks of people vote certain ways. The case can be made the other way, too.
What about a person who's pretty financially marginalized but listens to their pastor say vote for the guy with the moral values, and does so.
Which brings up a point I made earlier in some PMs: Voting for any candidate based on their moral posture is not the same thing as agreeing with his policies.
This is a big, big failing of the modern Democrats. They just can't get why someone would vote for a guy whose policies wouldn't be in sync with their own financial self-interest. Yet, as the GOP has proven since the 1980s it's easy to have that happen time and again.
Financially speaking or otherwise, it doesn't really personally effect a voter in rural West Virginia or Iowa whether two gay men get married in Mass. or someone has an abortion in San Diego. Yet those very things impact how they vote.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 10:59 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: | OK, back to some 'non-personalized' voting analysis
Of course certain blocks of people vote certain ways. The case can be made the other way, too.
What about a person who's pretty financially marginalized but listens to their pastor say vote for the guy with the moral values, and does so.
Which brings up a point I made earlier in some PMs: Voting for any candidate based on their moral posture is not the same thing as agreeing with his policies.
This is a big, big failing of the modern Democrats. They just can't get why someone would vote for a guy whose policies wouldn't be in sync with their own financial self-interest. Yet, as the GOP has proven since the 1980s it's easy to have that happen time and again.
Financially speaking or otherwise, it doesn't really personally effect a voter in rural West Virginia or Iowa whether two gay men get married in Mass. or someone has an abortion in San Diego. Yet those very things impact how they vote. |
Great post. Shows some thought about puzzlement of voting tendency yet understanding that it isn't a failing of the people, but a failing of the party to accept what they really don't understand.
|
|
|
|
