THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS of the United States (DO THE WHITE MAN VOTES STILL COUNT?)
Options
Comments
-
somehow i suspect this is why i used the phrase "you just happen to have mentioned it in a post," with the it being "white votes"The Lonious Monk wrote: »I think you have me confused. I never made a distinction between white males and whites in general. I was always talking about whites as a whole.
I guess you're trying to be cute here, but that still doesn't change the fact that you quoted me and then followed with a comment that didn't really address anything I said. -
i guess you're trying to take a ? attitude here, which is both nice AND constructive, but while you're saying "it's been true for at least 20 years that you can't just get the majority of the white vote and completely ignore everyone else and expect to win," you're saying it's not a viable strategy for Romney to have pursued this. i'm saying it's possible for Obama to have gotten the majority of the white vote if you're not talking about women, as in, rather than Romney losing because the majority of the white vote couldn't top remaining whites + non-white votes, he may have lost because he didn't actually get the majority of white votes at all. so hopefully our respective positions are clear to each other at this point.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I guess you're trying to be cute here, but that still doesn't change the fact that you quoted me and then followed with a comment that didn't really address anything I said.
now beyond THAT, i was responding to waterproof's response to you, so if you were talking about whites as a whole... and he was talking about white males... perhaps he's the poster who should be considering the distinction...
now i do admit that i worded this in an unnecessarily confusing fashion a couple of posts ago, so, i don't know what the ? was going on there -
i guess you're trying to take a ? attitude here, which is both nice AND constructive, but while you're saying "it's been true for at least 20 years that you can't just get the majority of the white vote and completely ignore everyone else and expect to win," you're saying it's not a viable strategy for Romney to have pursued this. i'm saying it's possible for Obama to have gotten the majority of the white vote if you're not talking about women, as in, rather than Romney losing because the majority of the white vote couldn't top remaining whites + non-white votes, he may have lost because he didn't actually get the majority of white votes at all. so hopefully our respective positions are clear to each other at this point.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I guess you're trying to be cute here, but that still doesn't change the fact that you quoted me and then followed with a comment that didn't really address anything I said.
now beyond THAT, i was responding to waterproof's response to you, so if you were talking about whites as a whole... and he was talking about white males... perhaps he's the poster who should be considering the distinction...
now i do admit that i worded this in an unnecessarily confusing fashion a couple of posts ago, so, i don't know what the ? was going on there
It's all good. I was just confused. I really didn't understand what your point had to do with mine. That said, I do agree that Romney basically alienating women, white ones included, probably hurt his monopoly on the white vote. I don't have any numbers, but I'm betting he still managed to get the white majority narrowly. -
no, in all seriousness, when i re-read the posts, my reaction was "ah, excellent work making a less-than-straightforward post make LESS sense with the worst clarification possible," so in retrospect it's my failure.The Lonious Monk wrote: »It's all good. I was just confused. I really didn't understand what your point had to do with mine.
