gr8one1 wrote: This may sound racist, but I dont mean it as such.......Romney carried whites by 20 points, but lost to non whites by 60 polnts........non whites have far less education than whites and therefore have less opportunity and are far more reliant on government handouts.....these people are ripe for the Dem message of class warfare.

wisblue wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: This may sound racist, but I dont mean it as such.......Romney carried whites by 20 points, but lost to non whites by 60 polnts........non whites have far less education than whites and therefore have less opportunity and are far more reliant on government handouts.....these people are ripe for the Dem message of class warfare.

You may not have meant it to sound racist, but it certainly comes out that way. If you want to make a point about how education affects people's votes, you should be looking at the breakdown of voting by education level, not by race.

Here is that breakdown:

No high school (3%): 64-35 Obama
HS Grad (21%)- 51-48 Obama
Some college (29%): 49-48 Obama
College Grad (29%)- 51-47 Romney
Postgraduate (18%)- 55-42 Obama

When the final exit poll comes out there will probably be more crosstabs with vote by education and race, income and race, etc.

Of course people with the lowest incomes are more likely to favor Obama based on the differences in the party's policies, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are looking for "handouts" as opposed to assistance to meet a minimal standard of living, including access to health care.

The implication of your comment is that only uneducated people support Obama, but the fact that people with postgraduate degrees (who make up a much higher percentage of the electorate than people with no high school education, and barely less of the electorate than blacks and Latnos combined) supported Obama by 13 points totally refutes that claim.

I could make a stronger argument that the most educated people recognize that our society needs to have policies that provide support to the nation's poorest and least educated people, and that they don't see that as class warfare or socialism.

tower912 wrote: The only demographic that went decisively for Romney was 35 and older white males. So, Murf, your argument is that everybody that isn't you or like you is inferior. Nope. Nothing racist or misogynistic there.

gr8one1 wrote: 
Again, you present a fact and I presented facts and we both took from the same source----the exit polls-----to suggest that my facts are racist when they come from non racists sources is absurd-----you're another guy that looks at the glass half-empty when it comes to Murf!

Murf, to be fair, you reported a fact (Romney carried Whites and Obama carried everyone else), the rest was interpretation and incorrect at that.  I'm not going to criticize you for it, because lets be honest it is easy to do.  

The fact of the matter is the most educated, post-graduates, were alway going to vote Obama.  Santorum said it best, "We (conservatives) will never have the elite, intelligent people on our side."

gr8one1 wrote:

wisblue wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: This may sound racist, but I dont mean it as such.......Romney carried whites by 20 points, but lost to non whites by 60 polnts........non whites have far less education than whites and therefore have less opportunity and are far more reliant on government handouts.....these people are ripe for the Dem message of class warfare.

You may not have meant it to sound racist, but it certainly comes out that way. If you want to make a point about how education affects people's votes, you should be looking at the breakdown of voting by education level, not by race.

Here is that breakdown:

No high school (3%): 64-35 Obama
HS Grad (21%)- 51-48 Obama
Some college (29%): 49-48 Obama
College Grad (29%)- 51-47 Romney
Postgraduate (18%)- 55-42 Obama

When the final exit poll comes out there will probably be more crosstabs with vote by education and race, income and race, etc.

Of course people with the lowest incomes are more likely to favor Obama based on the differences in the party's policies, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are looking for "handouts" as opposed to assistance to meet a minimal standard of living, including access to health care.

The implication of your comment is that only uneducated people support Obama, but the fact that people with postgraduate degrees (who make up a much higher percentage of the electorate than people with no high school education, and barely less of the electorate than blacks and Latnos combined) supported Obama by 13 points totally refutes that claim.

I could make a stronger argument that the most educated people recognize that our society needs to have policies that provide support to the nation's poorest and least educated people, and that they don't see that as class warfare or socialism.

Look you presented facts and I presented facts-----what I presented I took out of the Wall St Journal and the Milwaukee J/S-----are you saying that these publications are racist?

Look at the class as half full for a change !

wisblue wrote:

gr8one1 wrote:

wisblue wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: This may sound racist, but I dont mean it as such.......Romney carried whites by 20 points, but lost to non whites by 60 polnts........non whites have far less education than whites and therefore have less opportunity and are far more reliant on government handouts.....these people are ripe for the Dem message of class warfare.

You may not have meant it to sound racist, but it certainly comes out that way. If you want to make a point about how education affects people's votes, you should be looking at the breakdown of voting by education level, not by race.

Here is that breakdown:

No high school (3%): 64-35 Obama
HS Grad (21%)- 51-48 Obama
Some college (29%): 49-48 Obama
College Grad (29%)- 51-47 Romney
Postgraduate (18%)- 55-42 Obama

When the final exit poll comes out there will probably be more crosstabs with vote by education and race, income and race, etc.

Of course people with the lowest incomes are more likely to favor Obama based on the differences in the party's policies, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are looking for "handouts" as opposed to assistance to meet a minimal standard of living, including access to health care.

The implication of your comment is that only uneducated people support Obama, but the fact that people with postgraduate degrees (who make up a much higher percentage of the electorate than people with no high school education, and barely less of the electorate than blacks and Latnos combined) supported Obama by 13 points totally refutes that claim.

I could make a stronger argument that the most educated people recognize that our society needs to have policies that provide support to the nation's poorest and least educated people, and that they don't see that as class warfare or socialism.

Look you presented facts and I presented facts-----what I presented I took out of the Wall St Journal and the Milwaukee J/S-----are you saying that these publications are racist?

Look at the class as half full for a change !

You presented the fact of how whites and nonwhites voted in the election. I am not taking issue with that.

I am taking issue with your interpretation of those facts and presenting other facts to refute that interpretation.----but your interpretation of my post is incorrect----all I said was that the non whites have less education and therefore less opportunity than whites---and that these people therefore are ripe for the DEM message of class warfare----and that is a correct statement----there happens to be for whatever reason a much greater percentage of non whites without higher education than whites.----notice I refer to a greater percentage----certainly there are minority exceptions, which you seem to be focused on.

It has nothing to do with looking at the glass as half full. It has to do with looking beyond the first level of fact to draw a conclusion.

MUfanPhD wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: 
Again, you present a fact and I presented facts and we both took from the same source----the exit polls-----to suggest that my facts are racist when they come from non racists sources is absurd-----you're another guy that looks at the glass half-empty when it comes to Murf!

Murf, to be fair, you reported a fact (Romney carried Whites and Obama carried everyone else), the rest was interpretation and incorrect at that.  I'm not going to criticize you for it, because lets be honest it is easy to do.----I didn't say that at all-----I didn't use the word "EVERYONE"-----I always allow for exceptions! 

The fact of the matter is the most educated, post-graduates, were alway going to vote Obama.  Santorum said it best, "We (conservatives) will never have the elite, intelligent people on our side."------I didn't comment on post graduates-----that's a different topic altogether-----BTW are you inferring that only post graduates are "intelligent"????

tower912 wrote: Murf, I don't think you are racist. But to borrow from James Carville, it's the math, stupid. The core of the repulican party is older white people who aren't in unions. That demographic is shrinking. More Latinos vote than before. Bush got 40% of the Latino vote, Romney <30%. African Americans % of the electorate has gone up. And education is irrelevant. The bottom line is that either the Republican party has to figure out how to get some of the non-white, non-older voter. Because the demographics are only going to get worse for them if they don't.

gr8one1 wrote:

tower912 wrote: Murf, I don't think you are racist. But to borrow from James Carville, it's the math, stupid. The core of the repulican party is older white people who aren't in unions. That demographic is shrinking. More Latinos vote than before. Bush got 40% of the Latino vote, Romney <30%. African Americans % of the electorate has gone up. And education is irrelevant. The bottom line is that either the Republican party has to figure out how to get some of the non-white, non-older voter. Because the demographics are only going to get worse for them if they don't.

Won't get worse if more of the non whites receive education or training and qualify for high or higher paying jobs-----at that point the many will become more interested in conservative principles on taxes, investment, and deficits.

Lack of access to job training in this country is a national disgrace----we seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

wisblue wrote:

gr8one1 wrote:

tower912 wrote: Murf, I don't think you are racist. But to borrow from James Carville, it's the math, stupid. The core of the repulican party is older white people who aren't in unions. That demographic is shrinking. More Latinos vote than before. Bush got 40% of the Latino vote, Romney <30%. African Americans % of the electorate has gone up. And education is irrelevant. The bottom line is that either the Republican party has to figure out how to get some of the non-white, non-older voter. Because the demographics are only going to get worse for them if they don't.

Won't get worse if more of the non whites receive education or training and qualify for high or higher paying jobs-----at that point the many will become more interested in conservative principles on taxes, investment, and deficits.

Lack of access to job training in this country is a national disgrace----we seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

If your point now is that the country and states should be pursuing policies that make quality education and training available and accessible to as many people as possible, I am all for that.

I still think that if you are trying to make a point about how less educated people are more inclined to support Democrats, the better way to do that is to look directly at how people voted based on their education level, not how they voted based on race.----either way or both points should/could be made----me thinks you are too sensitive about  the word "race"-----needs to be talked about also.

DukeWayne wrote: http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregor...tion-wealth-has

The allure of having the government run your life has finally taken hold in America. Sean Hannity, as well as I ...

free ray lewis wrote:

DukeWayne wrote: http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregor...tion-wealth-has

The allure of having the government run your life has finally taken hold in America. Sean Hannity, as well as I ...

Stop...your killing me...Hannity?  Hannity?  Come back to reality if you want to win a national election again...you need to exorcise the likes of HANNITY from serious conservative circles if GOP wants to win again...

Guys like him have pushed, pushed, pushed the GOP into a marginalized party...

They just lost to a guy with a 7.9% unemployment rate!  and lost BADLY...

First term Presidents are running for reelection starting immediately after their opponent concedes.  Like most Presidents Obama paid back IOU’s and crafted policy that appealed to his base.  Obama had an expanded new Dem base that he wanted to stay engaged so he could win reelection.  Obviously BO lost independents in 2012 and the popular votes shows this is basically a 50/50 country, but his new base delivered reelection, so basically his plan worked.

Now in his second term BO hopefully will come to the center and focus on his legacy.  Let’s hope BO and Congress can work together to address Jobs, spending, and paying down the debt.  Clinton had Morris to help move him more towards the middle and perhaps BO will have Clinton.  If the economy continues to tank the Dems won’t likely get the same electorate in four years.

On the Republican side they need to address Latinos.  IMO Latinos are a great fit for the GOP but have not been courted properly.  Work for the Latino vote and put a young qualified and preferably minority candidate like Rubio on the ticket.

gr8one1 wrote: This may sound racist, but I dont mean it as such.......Romney carried whites by 20 points, but lost to non whites by 60 polnts........non whites have far less education than whites and therefore have less opportunity and are far more reliant on government handouts.....these people are ripe for the Dem message of class warfare.

free ray lewis wrote:

DukeWayne wrote: http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregor...tion-wealth-has

The allure of having the government run your life has finally taken hold in America. Sean Hannity, as well as I ...

Stop...your killing me...Hannity?  Hannity?  Come back to reality if you want to win a national election again...you need to exorcise the likes of HANNITY from serious conservative circles if GOP wants to win again...

Guys like him have pushed, pushed, pushed the GOP into a marginalized party...

They just lost to a guy with a 7.9% unemployment rate!  and lost BADLY...

DukeWayne wrote:

There is nothing he could do that would sway liberal's from not voting for him. They would give up their own lives for the guy.

MUAlphaBangura wrote:

free ray lewis wrote:

DukeWayne wrote: http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregor...tion-wealth-has

The allure of having the government run your life has finally taken hold in America. Sean Hannity, as well as I ...

Stop...your killing me...Hannity?  Hannity?  Come back to reality if you want to win a national election again...you need to exorcise the likes of HANNITY from serious conservative circles if GOP wants to win again...

Guys like him have pushed, pushed, pushed the GOP into a marginalized party...

They just lost to a guy with a 7.9% unemployment rate!  and lost BADLY...

I'm a conservative and I agree with you wholeheartedly. He can take Rush with him when he goes.

gr8one1 wrote: This may sound racist, but I dont mean it as such.......Romney carried whites by 20 points, but lost to non whites by 60 polnts........non whites have far less education than whites and therefore have less opportunity and are far more reliant on government handouts.....these people are ripe for the Dem message of class warfare.

DukeWayne wrote:

MUAlphaBangura wrote:

free ray lewis wrote:

DukeWayne wrote: http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregor...tion-wealth-has

The allure of having the government run your life has finally taken hold in America. Sean Hannity, as well as I ...

Stop...your killing me...Hannity?  Hannity?  Come back to reality if you want to win a national election again...you need to exorcise the likes of HANNITY from serious conservative circles if GOP wants to win again...

Guys like him have pushed, pushed, pushed the GOP into a marginalized party...

They just lost to a guy with a 7.9% unemployment rate!  and lost BADLY...

I'm a conservative and I agree with you wholeheartedly. He can take Rush with him when he goes.

So who should true conservatives listen to?

Mutaman wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: This may sound racist, but I dont mean it as such.......Romney carried whites by 20 points, but lost to non whites by 60 polnts........non whites have far less education than whites and therefore have less opportunity and are far more reliant on government handouts.....these people are ripe for the Dem message of class warfare.

How much education do you have? Looking back at your posts prior to Tuesday, you were wrong about everything! How come you didn't factor the non educated non white vote into your predictions.

My advice- less time posting on this board and more time in the library. A consciousness raising class or two might not hurt either.

MUAlphaBangura wrote:

Mutaman wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: This may sound racist, but I dont mean it as such.......Romney carried whites by 20 points, but lost to non whites by 60 polnts........non whites have far less education than whites and therefore have less opportunity and are far more reliant on government handouts.....these people are ripe for the Dem message of class warfare.

How much education do you have? Looking back at your posts prior to Tuesday, you were wrong about everything! How come you didn't factor the non educated non white vote into your predictions.

My advice- less time posting on this board and more time in the library. A consciousness raising class or two might not hurt either.

Murph could run circles around your pompous, sorry ass.