republican party. home of angry whites.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Free Thinker, Aug 28, 2012.

  1. A Republican strategist said something interesting and revealing on Friday, though it largely escaped attention in the howling gusts of punditry over Mitt Romney’s birth certificate crack and a potential convention-altering hurricane. The subject was a Ron Brownstein story outlining the demographic hit rates each party requires to win in November. To squeak out a majority, Mitt Romney probably needs to win at least 61 percent of the white vote — a figure exceeding what George H.W. Bush commanded over Michael Dukakis in 1988. The Republican strategist told Brownstein, “This is the last time anyone will try to do this” — “this” being a near total reliance on white votes to win a presidential election.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/2012-or-never-for-gops-white-base.html
     
  2. stoic

    stoic

    Plagiarize and regurgitate.
     
  3. Saw that on Maddow, the last time a president took 60+ percent of the white vote was when Reagan shellacked Mondale.
     
  4. Also, I think it is the party of angry white males. Most whites not from Dixie , Idaho, West Texas know what the GOP has stooped to, and it is saddening to them.
     
  5. do you have anything of value to say? i realize by all indications the answer is no.
    the only remaining question is whether its because you are lazy or incapable of stringing a whole sentence of rational thought together. care to enlighten us?
     
  6. stoic

    stoic

    By all indications it is impossible to enlighten you or any of the other far left ET'ers

    I merely point out that once again your weakness for "copy and paste" the intellectual Socialist party line.

    Those incapable of original thought are those most predisposed to propaganda.

    Lazy is copy and paste.... For me.... I just don't waste much time on you anymore.

    Stoic

    P.S. (Hint) This is where you discredit yourself by replying with the customary "lefty" string of name calling.
     
  7. well thats a start. kind of. i suppose its too much to ask that you be able to dispute the facts of the story? since you claim to have this thing about original thought i thought just maybe you would have something of value to add.
     
  8. What facts are you contending the story conveyed?
     
  9. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Mostly the latter.
     
  10. notice how filtcher never mentions any facts of his stories/links in his rebuttals.

    I doubt he even reads them.
     
    #10     Aug 28, 2012