[megatron]

(10-03-2012 07:42 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 12:05 AM)bacon Wrote:  

btw ANYONE who says its a conflict of interest to be black and republican is crazy.

My mental faculties are in the right place.

Quote:

democrats want to keep blacks(latinos as well) poor and marginalized so they can count on them for votes.

You have some sourcing for that or is it just a theory of yours?

Quote:

the introduction of welfare into black communities several generations ago which was available only to single women helped break up the black family and by extention black communities.

Welfare policy as it was applied was not beneficial, I agree.

Quote:

if blacks are really the beneficiaries of democrats you should visit baltimore or D.C. and see how democrat politics are benefiting black communities there.

Two inner city communities don't make your point (my pointing out a couple of affluent, largely democratic black areas wouldn't be sensible either), nor is the association between democratic policy and the negative outcomes in said urban areas established by your argument.

Conservative policy is absolutely not friendly to blacks or most latinos.

Quote:

im not saying republicans are the answer but to say its nuts to see a black guy as a republican to me is outdated thinking.

"Outdated"? It is common sense. It doesn't make any sense to join a party composed in any large part (note the lack of the word "entirely" there) of people who are openly hostile to you and/or your presence in "their" society, as the Republican Party of today quite clearly is. The strongest and most hostile modern attacks on blacks and latinos in this society have come from the right-this is why these people favor the left. Its mere common sense on their part-these folks aren't the idiots they are often portrayed to be. They know what is hostile to them and they avoid it.

Speaking as a black male in particular, one would have to be either blind or delusional to align themselves in such a manner (I was both, for the record).
Admittedly, if I were a young white male I'd probably be singing a different tune.

And I'm not really sure how Republican policies are openly hostile to Blacks in particular. Now, if you'd have said that both Democrat and Republican policies are bad for the middle class (because they both refuse to cut spending, hence continuing to devalue the dollar), then I'd agree. Care to elaborate?

[Excelsior]

(10-03-2012 12:14 PM)megatron Wrote:  

And I'm not really sure how Republican policies are openly hostile to Blacks in particular. Now, if you'd have said that both Democrat and Republican policies are bad for the middle class (because they both refuse to cut spending, hence continuing to devalue the dollar), then I'd agree. Care to elaborate?

Linked substantiations here, read the thread.

[WestCoast]

One question to everyone on these political threads, I am curious. Why do you care so much?

Being realistic no one on these forums can change shit unless they are mega rich or have influence such as a guy like Muhammad Ali, if no one listens to you, your opinion doesn't matter. When I mean listen to you I mean, no one that matters will be influenced. Sure you convince 10 RVf members but unless you're changing the minds of millions it's kind of a waste of your time no? Spend that time making $ and getting girls instead?

Last thing I care about is politics, it's wayyy out of my hands.

[Excelsior]

Continuing in the spirit of this response...

(10-03-2012 10:10 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

Bob Herbert, Mediaite, huffingtonpost, dailybeast, salon, etc those are the sources you use?

Mediaite source is here. It addresses the comments of a fairly prominent conservative writer, journalist and commentator.

Please show me how the Mediaite source has misrepresented Derbyshire's comments (which, incidentally, were also sourced in the very next link I provided).

The HuffPost source is here. It describes the hostilities shown disproportionately by Southern Republicans to interracial dating. Has this site misrepresented the findings of the polls (which are linked in the article)?

The DailyBeast source is here. It discusses the traits of Tea Party members, linking to polling figures and quotes to get its point across. Can you show me how it has misrepresented the information available?

The Salon source is here. It relies on the words of a former chairman of the Florida GOP who admits to engaging in practices designed to limit the black vote. Have they misrepresented him? His comments could be false, but the article does not deny that. Why is it not credible?

There are 10 other links in that response, all designed to support my claims regarding the hostilities the modern Republican Party has shown towards minorities and why said minorities are justified in being suspicious of said party. You're welcome to show me why they also carry no weight, if you're able.

[Smitty]

(10-03-2012 12:14 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 10:10 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

Come on man, I can counter each one of your links with Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dailycaller.com, Tucker Carlson and you would call me biased.

Would I say that? Strange, I don't recall having done so before nor do I recall a tendency on my part to engage in the ad-hominem. Is that what I would actually say, or is that merely a estimation on your part with no real basis in fact?
Please, fellow forumer I've never met, tell me more about the words you'd like to put in my mouth and the conclusions I'd make before I make them. You clearly know more about myself than I do.

On a serious note: I do consider the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to be lacking and ineffective. Merely stating this is not a rebuttal, and not an action I would take as I am not fond of the logical fallacy. Were you to present me with said sources to counter my claims regarding the hostility shown by the right to certain groups (and please, you're welcome to do so), I would attempt to refute them on their facts which, given my perception of their lack of credibility, I would likely not find too difficult a task.

That being said, if you don't like the sources I've presented to support my claims with regards to the nature of some aspects of the Republican party and its hostility to minorities, refute them (all of them) on fact. I will not merely accept your word with regards to their lack of credibility (I'm quite comfortable with them)-I want a demonstration of their inaccuracy (read: why their credibility cannot be affirmed), a demonstration of the kind I would provide were you to show me a Fox News source I found lacking. What you've offered so far cannot be considered a rebuttal, and is more accurately termed a lazy dismissal by ad-hominem.

So you cite sources based on opinion - e.g. Bob Herbert writes an opinion column for the New York Times - and you tell me to refute those opinions, with facts?

How can anyone prove which political party is more, or less, hostile to black people?

How can this discussion be anything more than an exchange of philosophical beliefs (i.e. opinions)?

Going back to your statement:

Quote:

"Outdated"? It is common sense. It doesn't make any sense to join a party composed in any large part (note the lack of the word "entirely" there) of people who are openly hostile to you and/or your presence in "their" society, as the Republican Party of today quite clearly is. The strongest and most hostile modern attacks on blacks and latinos in this society have come from the right-this is why these people favor the left.

Are the people I quote below openly hostile to blacks?

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Joe Biden

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee..." (referring to Barack Obama). -Bill Clinton

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." - Lydon Johnson

"This guy, he was catapulted in on hope and change, what we hope the guy is. What the fuck? Everything he's saying's on the teleprompter. I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up." -Rod Blagojevich

“My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeastern liberal state.” -Joe Biden, again

"He (Senator Harry Reid, Democrat) was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama - a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination."
— Senator Harry Reid, quoted in the book "Game Changer"

[Smitty]

(10-03-2012 12:22 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

One question to everyone on these political threads, I am curious. Why do you care so much?

Being realistic no one on these forums can change shit unless they are mega rich or have influence such as a guy like Muhammad Ali, if no one listens to you, your opinion doesn't matter. When I mean listen to you I mean, no one that matters will be influenced. Sure you convince 10 RVf members but unless you're changing the minds of millions it's kind of a waste of your time no? Spend that time making $ and getting girls instead?

Last thing I care about is politics, it's wayyy out of my hands.

You're right, my man. Every few months I let myself get pulled into these discussions and end up regretting the time I spend on them.

I'll take your lead and back out of this one.

[WestCoast]

Glad to hear it. All this does is create hate which is going to go no where fast, tough to admit it but my opinion, your opinion, athlones opinion... Don't fucking matter because none of us have any power

If we did? Shit preach on then, but I doubt that would be done on "RVF forum". You would be on a podium... On TV.

I have strong opinions on this but you know what? I am a meaningless pawn as of today. So back to work on myself, my career, my health

I wish you the same.

Remember, the correct answer is meaningless if it falls on deaf ears

(10-03-2012 01:14 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(10-03-2012 12:22 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

One question to everyone on these political threads, I am curious. Why do you care so much?

Being realistic no one on these forums can change shit unless they are mega rich or have influence such as a guy like Muhammad Ali, if no one listens to you, your opinion doesn't matter. When I mean listen to you I mean, no one that matters will be influenced. Sure you convince 10 RVf members but unless you're changing the minds of millions it's kind of a waste of your time no? Spend that time making $ and getting girls instead?

Last thing I care about is politics, it's wayyy out of my hands.

You're right, my man. Every few months I let myself get pulled into these discussions and end up regretting the time I spend on them.

I'll take your lead and back out of this one.

[Blackhawk]

(10-02-2012 10:24 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

The support of the Democratic Party today by blacks is primarily a result of the democratic party's shift in focus to more progressive social justice/welfare concerns prior to World War 2.

I admit its debatable, but the "Blacks shifted because of how the Democrats were voting" reasoning seems to be liberal mythology and Democrat propaganda not supported by the actual historical facts. For example, the 1964 Civil Rights act was supported by 82% of Senate Republicans vs only 60% of Senate Democrats, and in the House it was supported by 82% Republicans vs 63% of Democrats. If Blacks were really deciding party affiliation by who voted how, they would have instead, by this reasoning, gone even more majority Republican. They didn't. Instead they went to the very party voting against them. Why?

I maintain that the Great Northern Migration over Democrat controlled railroads from agricultural work in the South to skilled labor in factories in the North that were (and still are) controlled by the Democrat Party was the larger factor in the party change over.

The cities that the migration flowed to like Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. were all effectively one-party cities already controlled by the Democratic party. All of these cities have only elected Democrats as Mayor for generations going back. If you look at older rust-belt Democrat enclaves like Pittsburgh, that's true even back to 1934. Party registration is public information that anyone can request from the Voters Registrar office. Employers and union hiring halls did (and still do) regularly pull these lists and pay attention to party registration during hiring. You either registered as a Democrat voter, or were left out in the cold. While union power has been greatly diminished compared to the past, even today AFSCME, IBEW, NEA and SEIU contributions go almost exclusively to Democrats.

Meanwhile, unlike their northern brothers, Blacks that remained in the South still tended to vote Republican, with the trend seeming to change only with the Reverse Migration of the 1990s of skilled northern black labor following jobs to new car factories and other manufacturing jobs being built in the South for its lower cost of living advantage and lack of strong labor unions. They had been trained at work to only vote Democrat in the North, and when they relocated, they continued these habits.

Looking at actual voting records, there isn't a very good correlation between how the parties were actually voting and how Blacks were registering and voting. But looking at the already existing political control of cities where Blacks were migrating to, I do see a high correlation, and I continue to see a high correlation today. People generally vote where they live.

[painter]

Smitty those are all democrats so it is not possible for them to be racist. Only conservatives are racist, even if they don't think they are. You probably use racist code words and don't even know it, like golf, Chicago, and kitchen cabinet. Republicans only want white people with ancestors who came over on the Mayflower in the party. Trust me, the New York Times said this so it's the unbiased truth.

[Excelsior]

(10-03-2012 01:12 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

So you cite sources based on opinion - e.g. Bob Herbert writes an opinion column for the New York Times - and you tell me to refute those opinions, with facts?

You're going to point to one of the 15 sources I gave you and generalize them all accordingly?

Would you say that this is an opinion piece? How about this?

Quote:

How can anyone prove which political party is more, or less, hostile to black people?

We analyze the general ideological and policy trends within each one.

Quote:

How can this discussion be anything more than an exchange of philosophical beliefs (i.e. opinions)?

Find the data, look at the actions that have been taken.

Quote:

Going back to your statement:

Yes, let's make this more clear before we get to your strawman.

What I said:

Quote:

"Outdated"? It is common sense. It doesn't make any sense to join a party composed in any large part (note the lack of the word "entirely" there) of people who are openly hostile to you and/or your presence in "their" society, as the Republican Party of today quite clearly is. The strongest and most hostile modern attacks on blacks and latinos in this society have come from the right-this is why these people favor the left. Its mere common sense on their part-these folks aren't the idiots they are often portrayed to be. They know what is hostile to them and they avoid it.

My implications are as follows:

1. The modern right is composed in large part of said hostile elements.
2. I have not at any point in this discussion precluded the existence of said elements on the opposite side of the aisle. I have attempted to show a degree of difference between the two, with the implication that one is worse than the other in the eyes of the particular voting bloc (blacks, most hispanics) in question.
3. To emphasize this degree of difference, I make the claim that the "most hostile attacks" on said blocs have come from the right, a claim several of my sources affirm. That is unless, of course, you would like to provide me with a source showing mass democratic opposition to interracial relationships, mass democratic support for attitudes like these, or prominent democratic figures espousing the genetic inferiority of blacks while emphasizing the need to put them under increased scrutiny, befriend/use them on occasion for political gain and avoid helping them (these among other things referenced in the prior sources given).

Quote:

Are the people I quote below openly hostile to blacks?

I doesn't really matter if they are-I never claimed that modern democrats were incapable of racial hostility. But, if you insist...

Quote:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Joe Biden

No, he's just an idiot.

Quote:

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee..." (referring to Barack Obama). -Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton made a rather mercenary use of the race card in a desperate attempt to push his woman into the white house. He was also partly responsible for affirming some of the aspects of the "New Jim Crow" I cited earlier.
So yes, he's been hostile to at least an extent.

Quote:

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." - Lydon Johnson

Sounds hostile to me.

Quote:

"This guy, he was catapulted in on hope and change, what we hope the guy is. What the fuck? Everything he's saying's on the teleprompter. I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up." -Rod Blagojevich

Yes. Also a douchebag.

Quote:

“My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything [but] a Northeastern liberal state.” -Joe Biden, again

No, again.

Quote:

"He (Senator Harry Reid, Democrat) was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama - a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination."
— Senator Harry Reid, quoted in the book "Game Changer"

That sounds more like ignorance than the open hostility I cited above.

Of course, even if that were not the case, the fact is that I did not claim that those left of center were incapable of showing open hostility for blacks. We're just focusing on strawmen right now.

(10-03-2012 01:14 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

You're right, my man. Every few months I let myself get pulled into these discussions and end up regretting the time I spend on them.

I'll take your lead and back out of this one.

If that's how you feel.

(10-03-2012 01:33 PM)painter Wrote:  

Smitty those are all democrats so it is not possible for them to be racist.

I didn't say that.

Quote:

Only conservatives are racist, even if they don't think they are.

Didn't say that.

Quote:

You probably use racist code words and don't even know it, like golf, Chicago, and kitchen cabinet.

Didn't say that.

Quote:

Republicans only want white people with ancestors who came over on the Mayflower in the party.

I didn't say this either.

Quote:

Trust me, the New York Times said this

No, it did not.

Nice series of strawmen there, though. You can enjoy fighting them by yourself-I don't have the time to waste doing that.

[jammer]

(10-03-2012 01:33 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 10:24 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

The support of the Democratic Party today by blacks is primarily a result of the democratic party's shift in focus to more progressive social justice/welfare concerns prior to World War 2.

I admit its debatable, but the "Blacks shifted because of how the Democrats were voting" reasoning seems to be liberal mythology and Democrat propaganda not supported by the actual historical facts. For example, the 1964 Civil Rights act was supported by 82% of Senate Republicans vs only 60% of Senate Democrats, and in the House it was supported by 82% Republicans vs 63% of Democrats. If Blacks were really deciding party affiliation by who voted how, they would have instead, by this reasoning, gone even more majority Republican. They didn't. Instead they went to the very party voting against them. Why?

I maintain that the Great Northern Migration over Democrat controlled railroads from agricultural work in the South to skilled labor in factories in the North that were (and still are) controlled by the Democrat Party was the larger factor in the party change over.

The cities that the migration flowed to like Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. were all effectively one-party cities already controlled by the Democratic party. All of these cities have only elected Democrats as Mayor for generations going back. If you look at older rust-belt Democrat enclaves like Pittsburgh, that's true even back to 1934. Party registration is public information that anyone can request from the Voters Registrar office. Employers and union hiring halls did (and still do) regularly pull these lists and pay attention to party registration during hiring. You either registered as a Democrat voter, or were left out in the cold. While union power has been greatly diminished compared to the past, even today AFSCME, IBEW, NEA and SEIU contributions go almost exclusively to Democrats.

Meanwhile, unlike their northern brothers, Blacks that remained in the South still tended to vote Republican, with the trend seeming to change only with the Reverse Migration of the 1990s of skilled northern black labor following jobs to new car factories and other manufacturing jobs being built in the South for its lower cost of living advantage and lack of strong labor unions. They had been trained at work to only vote Democrat in the North, and when they relocated, they continued these habits.

Looking at actual voting records, there isn't a very good correlation between how the parties were actually voting and how Blacks were registering and voting. But looking at the already existing political control of cities where Blacks were migrating to, I do see a high correlation, and I continue to see a high correlation today. People generally vote where they live.

Where is your evidence that blacks shifted because of unions or that southern blacks kept voting for republicans until the 90's?




This pretty much refutes to your point. Notice the change from 1960-1964 and the consistent pattern post 1964. None of what you said makes sense based on that graph.

[Excelsior]

(10-03-2012 01:33 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

I admit its debatable, but the "Blacks shifted because of how the Democrats were voting" reasoning seems to be liberal mythology and Democrat propaganda not supported by the actual historical facts. For example, the 1964 Civil Rights act was supported by 82% of Senate Republicans vs only 60% of Senate Democrats, and in the House it was supported by 82% Republicans vs 63% of Democrats. If Blacks were really deciding party affiliation by who voted how, they would have instead, by this reasoning, gone even more majority Republican. They didn't. Instead they went to the very party voting against them. Why?

1. The Civil Rights Act was proposed by a Democrat and signed into law by a Democratic President.
2. Prior democratic figures (Truman, Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor, etc) had made very visible strides in putting forward Civil Rights that Republicans were not making. These include open references to desegregation and anti-lynching laws, among other things.

These very visible efforts by the leading figures within the democratic party had two major effects:
1. They earned a lot of credibility with blacks.
2. They began the shift within the democratic party that led to the eventual defection of more "old school" democrats like Strom Thurmond. The presence of these figures may explain the low democratic voting rate you see for the CRA in '64.

Regardless, this doesn't seem very implausible at all looking at all the facts. By '64 the democrats had made most of the major plays in favor of civil rights during the prior two decades, and they kept the momentum. The subsequent defections solidified the trend.

Quote:

I maintain that the Great Northern Migration over Democrat controlled railroads from agricultural work in the South to skilled labor in factories in the North that were (and still are) controlled by the Democrat Party was the larger factor in the party change over.

I don't see much academic support for this theory and remain unconvinced by it, but you're welcome to see things as you will.

[Blackhawk]

(10-03-2012 02:20 PM)jammer Wrote:  

This pretty much refutes to your point.

No, unsurprisingly, it supports my position. It even comes from one of the links I've already provided!

The Great Migration of 6 million blacks out of the Black Belt of the South into Democrat Political Machine held cities in the north started in the 1910s, was tied to factory labor shortages around both WWI and WWII, and forced relocated Blacks to register and vote Democrat if they wanted jobs with the Machine. I just wish the chart extended before 1936 (the first year Blacks were allowed in the Democratic Convention) and was actual registered party instead of "affiliation".

(10-03-2012 02:30 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

1. The Civil Rights Act was proposed by a Democrat and signed into law by a Democratic President.

Correction: the 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by a Democrat, voted for by a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats, and signed into law by a post-assassination Democratic Vice President ...after the Republicans had already proposed and passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1957. Republicans have a long history of passing multiple Civil Rights Acts dating back to 1866.

If Black voters really were responding to Civil Rights Acts being passed, why did the earlier Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1957 by Republicans completely fail to move Black voters back to the Republican party? Why did the largest changes in Black Democrat registration come at times that align with economic booms like the WWI and WWII relocation efforts to staff Victory Factories, not with times that align with passages of Civil Rights Acts?

It appears more likely that existing Political Machines in the cities they were relocated to are what forced Blacks to change to Democrat, which is why they were already voting in the majority Democratic party starting in 1948 after the ramp up for WWII, long before 1964. Corrupt political machine hiring practices that still continue today.

(10-03-2012 02:30 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

2. Prior democratic figures (Truman, Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor, etc) had made very visible strides in putting forward Civil Rights that Republicans were not making. These include open references to desegregation and anti-lynching laws, among other things.

And it was Eisenhower who both forced the Army to desegregate and sent the 101st Airborne to walk black children to newly desegregated schools. Nixon who worked to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Spiro Agnew who passed some of the first bans against segregation in public housing. Nixon who put racial quotas on the construction industry and forced the Building Trades to integrate. Nixon who forced southern schools to integrate, with the number of blacks attending segregated schools in the South declining from 70% to 18.4% in the first two years of his administration. The Republicans kept on pushing desegregation and Civil Rights agendas long after Black voters had abandoned them and moved to the Democratic party, and keep doing so today. It's really amazing how much they keep doing for so little love returned.

(10-03-2012 02:30 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

I don't see much academic support for this theory

Really? Well I guess I gots me a Masters Thesis then.

[Excelsior]

(10-03-2012 07:56 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

Correction: the 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by a Democrat, voted for by a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats, and signed into law by a post-assassination Democratic Vice President ...after the Republicans had already proposed and passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1957. Republicans have a long history of passing multiple Civil Rights Acts dating back to 1866.

None of that is surprising when you consider the fact that the old Republican Party was once the "Party of Lincoln" that heavily supported blacks and that, as a result, saw the bulk of black support. Even through the late 50's/early 60's, the Republicans were still getting over a third of the black vote.

The new Republican Party (fuzzy dates for its beginning, but mid-60's onward is a decent marker) is a different animal, and cannot reasonably be compared to its pre-1960's counterpart (certainly cannot equate to its 1866 ancestor). That is the one folks are claiming is less friendly to black people and other minorities.

Quote:

If Black voters really were responding to Civil Rights Acts being passed, why did the earlier Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1957 by Republicans completely fail to move Black voters back to the Republican party?

Large, visible efforts had already been made by Roosevelt and Truman. Arguably a case of too little, too late. It is likely that, by that point, the Democrats had already gained momentum within the black community.

Further, there are two factors you're overlooking with regards to the 1964 CRA. First, it was far more substantial than its predecessors, with broader means for enforcement of anti-segregation and discrimination law than the acts that came before it. The '57 act was filled with loopholes, and the '60 act, though better, was still not at the level of its successor. Both of these early acts were concerned primarily with voting rights, and did not do the work their successor did to end segregation and discrimination on a broad level. Blacks may have responded to the '64 act in a more substantial manner in part because it worked more for them than prior acts and went much further than they did (though not quite as far as they wanted).

Secondly, you continue to note that it was voted on by a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Your do not note that, as Lyndon Johnson supported the bill, his Republican opponent (Goldwater) opposed it. This effectively locked the black vote down for the Democrats who, prior to this time, had only been able to count on smaller majorities (60% or so) of blacks in recent elections. Johnson got 94%.

This was the actual turning point. This, of course, was followed by the defection of conservative democrats (ex: Strom Thurmond, who had been crucial in weakening the prior CRA's and led opposition to them) to the Republican side. No Republican has been competitive for the black vote since.

Quote:

Why did the largest changes in Black Democrat registration come at times that align with economic booms like the WWI and WWII relocation efforts to staff Victory Factories, not with times that align with passages of Civil Rights Acts?

You're putting too much weight on the CRAs and not enough on the Democratic efforts made before then. Also, see above-the largest swing occurred with the '64 CRA because of a) the election (Republican candidate's clear opposition on the most visible stage of American politics) and b) the fact that the '64 CRA was much more substantial than its predecessors.

Quote:

It appears more likely that existing Political Machines in the cities they were relocated to are what forced Blacks to change to Democrat, which is why they were already voting in the majority Democratic party starting in 1948 after the ramp up for WWII, long before 1964. Corrupt political machine hiring practices that still continue today.

Still don't buy it. Aside from the lack of academic support, this sounds too much like another variation of "the blacks are merely forced/hoodwinked into voting that way" theory I hear too often from conservatives trying to ignore any agency blacks have in this society.

Blacks voted the way they did mainly because of successful efforts made by Democrats during the pre and post WW2 years. They gained the momentum with early efforts to push Civil Rights, and they kept it even in the wake of Republican attempts to regain it. The subsequent defection of more "traditional" Democrats to the Republican party during the mid-60's ended Republican hopes of coming back, and solidified the Democratic hold on the African American community.

Quote:

And it was Eisenhower who both forced the Army to desegregate and sent the 101st Airborne to walk black children to newly desegregated schools.

Which came well after Truman and Roosevelt's actions (read: late). All this does is explain why blacks did not become a lock for the Democrats at this point. Eisenhower probably prevented this from happening.

Quote:

Nixon who worked to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

1. Still late. 2. Very weak.

Quote:

Spiro Agnew who passed some of the first bans against segregation in public housing. Nixon who put racial quotas on the construction industry and forced the Building Trades to integrate. Nixon who forced southern schools to integrate, with the number of blacks attending segregated schools in the South declining from 70% to 18.4% in the first two years of his administration.

Helpful (Nixon was able to get more of the black vote in '72 than his last run), but still late. This wan't enough to overcome the developments I cited earlier during the 60's (stronger CRA, Goldwater opposition, mass defection of conservative, southern whites to Republican party).
Let's also not forget the Southern Strategy, which Nixon was among the first to successfully use in 1968. Blacks weren't dumb enough to completely overlook the racial implications of that strategy and its hostility to them.

Quote:

The Republicans kept on pushing desegregation and Civil Rights agendas long after Black voters had abandoned them and moved to the Democratic party, and keep doing so today. It's really amazing how much they keep doing for so little love returned.

Sure they do.

From the manager of George HW Bush's campaign and the 1989-1991 chairman of the RNC:

Quote:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

The modern Republican Party, by and large, cares fuck-all about blacks and most hispanics (even less than the Democrats do), which is why they do not have their support.

[bacon]

Athlone McGinnis im curious do you think that the interests of say latinos and blacks are the same? and for that matter gays and blacks?

the way i see it when lations are allowed to work in the US with little risk of deportation for low wages that doesnt hurt whites employment numbers that hurts blacks, who as a racial group hold a larger number of unskilled larbor jobs.

the black community with its high reliance on the church to serve as the pillar of the community is largely against gay marriage. As democrats serve to protect gay rights at the expense of black and latino voters opinion they help marginalize the very constituents they aim to be supporting. it may be less dificult to sell gay rights and marriage to whites but among black and latino communities the position against homosexuality is going to be hard to change.

there are many issues that the democrat party has moved to be the face of and to me the two most visible and polarizing issues to black democrats are legalizing undocmented illegals (who take unskilled jobs) and furthering the rights of gays to make their lifestyle more "accepted". from a polical standpoint the democrats are trying too hard to make everyone happy when fundamentally their constituents have many deep seeded differences. ultimately i think the ideals of black communities are not being met by democrats so by extention a shift to republican politics is to be expected.

the best way to look at a relationship especially a political one is to ask "what have you done for me lately?"

[Excelsior]

(10-04-2012 03:29 AM)bacon Wrote:  

Athlone McGinnis im curious do you think that the interests of say latinos and blacks are the same?

No, though I would contend that there is significant overlap. Both face heavy discrimination and largely occupy similar economic levels.
Of course, that economic similarity can create tension too, which is why I point to the overlap.

Quote:

and for that matter gays and blacks?

Much less overlap here. Blacks and Latinos are far more socially conservative than whites on the left. This creates some distance on issues like gay rights and abortion, among other things.
Most blacks and latinos can see this disconnect, but they do the cost benefit analysis (left still offers greater concern for civil rights, economic policy favors them a bit more, etc) and come out on the left anyway. That's the price they pay.

Quote:

there are many issues that the democrat party has moved to be the face of and to me the two most visible and polarizing issues to black democrats are legalizing undocmented illegals (who take unskilled jobs) and furthering the rights of gays to make their lifestyle more "accepted". from a polical standpoint the democrats are trying too hard to make everyone happy when fundamentally their constituents have many deep seeded differences. ultimately i think the ideals of black communities are not being met by democrats so by extention a shift to republican politics is to be expected.

No, because as contentious as these issues are among democrats, the modern Republican party has a far darker legacy (which they admit) when it comes to blacks. One is a matter of value differences, and the other is a matter of outright hostility. Blacks are not going to be in any hurry to join the ranks of any party that includes this guy. Don't expect too many hispanics to run over there either (though they may be more amenable as a whole than blacks).

What you're more likely to see is a split within the democratic party, and a gradual shift to more social conservatism as white liberals (very low fertility) become fewer in number relative to blacks and hispanics (who will become much more numerous in coming decades and who have higher fertility rates boosted even further by immigration). The democratic party will shift slightly in some aspects towards more social conservatism as it gets browner.

Quote:

the best way to look at a relationship especially a political one is to ask "what have you done for me lately?"

Republicans wouldn't look good in any answer to that question were it posed by blacks/latinos.

[Tex Pro]

Black republicans are an interesting phenomenon.

They are so rare that republicans fall all over themselves to point them out in order to divert charges of racism.

On a game related front, most black republicans I have met tend to be dating or married to decent looking white women.

So maybe there is a benefit to being a black republican ;0)

[Excelsior]

(10-04-2012 06:58 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Black republicans are an interesting phenomenon.

They are so rare that republicans fall all over themselves to point them out in order to divert charges of racism.

On a game related front, most black republicans I have met tend to be dating or married to decent looking white women.

So maybe there is a benefit to being a black republican ;0)

There is, thanks to free-market principles. Supply and Demand works here.

Demand: There is a sizable demand for conservative blacks within the GOP for practical reasons-the party needs them to a) fend off charges of racism and b) serve as living advertisements to less GOP-friendly groups and, perhaps, convince said groups to lend more support to the GOP. An articulate, conservative African-American is a valuable, highly sought after asset in all of this.

Supply: The number of educated blacks (particularly males) who could play this role is already quite low given the realities that population faces socially and economically. Of the few who are intellectual enough to fit that role (ex: Obama), most head straight for the left.

This Low Supply-High Demand situation indicates that there could be some substantial advantages for a black Republican-he/she could rise up the ranks a bit faster than usual (Herman Cain may be an example of this). Along with the demand, the visibility helps (black Republicans do stand out).
This is ironic, really, given the GOP's opposition to programs like Affirmative Action (which are driven by the same supply/demand principles), but I digress.

[ElJefe]

@ WestCoast: I disagree.

Talking about hot-topics, especially with smart people whom you disagree with, is the best way to sharpen your world view. You don't get smarter if no one ever makes you have to work hard to substantiate your argument.

In terms of personal productivity, it's a useless pasttime, yeah. But if you're interested in politics and how the world works, you get a lot more out of a hot debate then if you're just yapping superficial opinions to people who agree with you.

As long as you don't spend all day doing it (unless you get paid).

[WestCoast]

"In terms of personal productivity, it's a useless pasttime

The above is my view. If you have time to waste debating knowing full well you won't get any gains I worry about the value of that man's time. Take all the time you spent debating politics (I spent wayy to much in my college days) and turn that into weight lifting, making money or chasing girls and you will be happier. Being happier is the end goal.

Couldn't be happier that I avoided a poli sci double major. Can't regret wasted time though since that also does nothing. With that said everyone have fun debating I'm going back to making $

[JayMillz]

[66Scorpio]

A recent analysis I read was that the political shift started with the New Deal.

Another, by a black Republican, was that blacks - like women - tend to be risk-averse and their policy preferences reflect that.

[porscheguy]

If the Democrats keep pushing Kamala Harris, you’re going to see a lot more black republicans this time around.

[Easy_C]

(02-02-2019 10:31 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

If the Democrats keep pushing Kamala Harris, you’re going to see a lot more black republicans this time around.

No you won't.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The divides are all but set in stone now.

For the next 5 to 10 years American elections are going to be decided by two factors.

1) Which side can convince their supporters to turn up and vote.
2) How badly the Democrats cheat.