quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco There's a lot of Latinos here and they don't like black people. Don't play the race card on me again, just calling it out how it is.

For fuck's sake, shut up. That is so categorically false it is ridiculous.

If you're going to continue to make egregious accusations and insinuations it would behoove you to post something to support them.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For fuck's sake, shut up. That is so categorically false it is ridiculous. If you're going to continue to make egregious accusations and insinuations it would behoove you to post something to support them.

GroundHogBoy said Hillary won in Penn. because people there, his area, are racist. Fair enough, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. You didn't attack him then. I'm making the same perceptions about the people around here. I live here, you know. I'm not making statements about your homestate. Wait, let me pull up a poll of the Latinos in this area that are racist, and I'll get back to you, dumbass.

Not to mention, read up, it's not some big secret that Hillary wins large majorities of Latinos, I just posted an article in the last page about it.

Also, for the record, I'm half Hispanic, my entire neighborhood is Hispanic, all my friends past and present are Hispanic, as are/were their families. At times, they seem more racist against black people than any white people I've met, especially Cubans, which are the largest, most educated and prosperous of the Hispanics around this area. In the past, many have gone for Republicans, as they are very conservative. Also, they come out in droves to vote and have a very strong way of organizing when campaigns and elections come around. As a matter of fact, both Obama and Hillary came here twice each. They came earlier on to the more African-American neighborhoods of Newark and southside Jersey City. And then they both came only a mile up to get the Hispanic vote. It's the most densely populated area in the state and whoever wins in Hudson County wins the state. There's some justification for my argument, happy?

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Last edited by DJ Eco on Apr-27-2008 at 23:02

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco GroundHogBoy said Hillary won in Penn. because people there, his area, are racist. Fair enough, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. You didn't attack him then. I'm making the same perceptions about the people around here. I live here, you know. I'm not making statements about your homestate. Wait, let me pull up a poll of the Latinos in this area that are racist, and I'll get back to you, dumbass. Not to mention, read up, it's not some big secret that Hillary wins large majorities of Latinos, I just posted an article in the last page about it.

I apologize for the harsh tone - I'd thought we had this exact same argument in this thread earlier, but it seems it was a different thread. I'll post the exact same thing I posted then:

quote:

The Latino vote is pro-Clinton, not anti-Obama It’s not racism that’s been making the difference, it’s a 16-year head start. By Matt A. Barreto and Ricardo Ramírez February 7, 2008 The results of Tuesday's primaries brought a renewed and vigorous debate about the Latino vote and the "Latino gap" for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). States such as California, Illinois, New York, Arizona and New Mexico have very large Latino electorates and were very important battlegrounds. Raoul Contreras claims in his Blowback article "The Bradley effect is still in effect" that Latinos will not vote for a black candidate. The empirical evidence does not match his opinions, and the results from Super Tuesday and other important elections demonstrate Latino willingness to vote for African American candidates. Furthermore, the Latino vote in 2008 should be viewed as a pro-Clinton vote, not an anti-Obama or an anti-black vote, as Contreras and others have suggested. Without a doubt, Contreras' claims are not supported with credible evidence. It is incorrect to equate Latino support for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008 with anti-Obama or anti-black voting patterns. In multiple national surveys and in our own polling among Latinos in Nevada and California, we find that the Clinton advantage is driven primarily by her eight years as first lady and seven years in the Senate. By contrast, in April of last year, a national survey of Latino registered voters found that 35% had no opinion about Obama, compared with only 8% for Clinton. Even as recently as mid-January, the Field Poll reported that 27% of Latinos in California had "no opinion" about Obama. In short, while Obama has become well known in a relatively short time among political observers, he did not rise to national prominence among Latinos until this campaign. Moreover, this name-recognition advantage for Clinton was enhanced by a strong and aggressive advertising and outreach effort by her campaign and a string of high-profile endorsements. She has hired an independent Latino pollster and aired significantly more Spanish language radio and television ads. This must be contrasted with the Obama campaign's anemic and particularly ineffective outreach effort to the Latino segment of the electorate. Even Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a prominent Latino supporter of Obama, has criticized the presidential candidate for insufficient outreach to Latinos. In short, there are many reasons why Clinton enjoys a large advantage among Latino voters, and none of them has anything to do with racism. The claim, then, that her support is somehow evidence of Latino unwillingness to support African American candidates is wrong on its face. Latino voters have demonstrated strong support for African American candidates in the past, across a variety of circumstances. Harold Washington, David Dinkins, Wellington Webb and Ron Kirk were all elected as mayors of major American cities with Latino vote shares from 70% to 80%. More recently African American mayors have won a majority of the Latino vote in elections against white women. In Cleveland's 2005 mayoral contest, Frank Jackson won an estimated 65% of the Latino vote, defeating Jane Campbell. In Inglewood, Roosevelt Dorn won more than 70% of the Latino vote to defeat Judy Dunlap. Contreras is wrong to suggest that that Maxine Waters' congressional district is a poor example of Latino voting for black candidates because more than 80% of Latinos voted for Waters in 2006. Waters herself has stated in a National Public Radio interview that, "somebody said that Latinos wouldn't vote for a black. They vote for me all the time. There are any number of instances where our districts are majority Latino .. .and they vote over and over. I just don't see that." Obama himself has a strong record of winning Latino votes. In 2000, when Obama challenged incumbent Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for 1st Congressional District in Illinois, he won more Latino votes than African American votes. In 2004, when he ran for the U.S. Senate Democratic nomination in Illinois, Obama received more Latino votes than Latino candidate Gerry Chico. Claims that Latinos will not vote for Obama are clearly false. In 1973, when Tom Bradley was elected mayor of Los Angeles, he lost among Latinos, and the punditry then, as now, speculated that Latinos would not vote for a black candidate. But Bradley's political skills and the inherent shared interests of Latino voters and the Bradley coalition reversed this trend. Despite Contreras' anecdote that his grandfather voted against Bradley in 1982, Bradley won an estimated 70% of the Latino vote in his gubernatorial contest. Over 40% of Latino and African American Republicans voted for Bradley, compared with only 15% of white Republicans. Returning to 2008, Super Tuesday offers many insights into the Latino vote. In California, exit polls gave Clinton 67% of the Latino vote compared with 32% for Obama. However, Obama did considerably better among Latinos in Connecticut (53%), Illinois (51%) and Arizona (42%). We should be careful to make sweeping generalizations on the basis of individual observations. Even in California, where much was made of the Kennedy endorsements and Latino town hall rallies held by Obama, Clinton carried a 2-1 advantage. Yet, according to Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll, 55% of all California Latinos (Democrats and Republicans) held a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with just 18% unfavorable. Further, an exit poll by Loyola Marymount University found that 93% of Latinos stated that the country was ready to elect a black president, even though 67% of Latinos voted for Clinton. The point is to be careful of assuming that racism shapes Latino vote preferences. The Clintons have now campaigned nationally for the Latino vote since 1992. In 2007, Hillary Clinton named a Latina Democratic consultant, Patti Solis Doyle, as her national campaign manager. Further, she received early Latino endorsements from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, Sen. Robert Menendez in New Jersey and many other prominent Latinos across the country. In contrast, Obama, who has courted the Latino vote vigorously over the last week, has 16 years of ground to make up against the Clintons. Matt A. Barreto, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Washington, Seattle, and Ricardo Ramírez, an assistant professor political science at USC, are leading experts on Latino public opinion and voting patterns and have published more than 20 research articles on Latino voting behavior in leading political science journals.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,6253659.story

quote:

Does Obama Have A Catholic Problem? 11 Apr 2008 02:49 pm "Amazingly oversimplistic." Indeed, my mention of Obama's "Catholic problem" caused immediate cranial vasodilation in Chicago today, and so I've decided to explore the topic a little further. The raw exit polling is quite clear: Hillary Clinton does better among voters who say they are Catholic than Barack Obama. But a point raised by the Obama campaign is valid. There is nothing inherent in being Catholic that pushes a Democrat or independent to either candidate. Indeed, there is a correlation in states above the Mason-Dixon line between white, working class voters and the Roman Catholic religion. It is therefore unsurprising that Clinton does better among Catholics. Indeed, one could project Clinton's performance level among Catholics simply by looking at socioeconomic variables. Does this force work bidirectionally? What identity claim most impacts a vote? Socioeconomic? Or religious? The evidence, so far, is that religion plays less a role than economics. The data appears to show that the demogrpahic groups that Obama has the most trouble with are disproportionately Catholic; the groups that form Obama's base are disproportionately not Catholic. (Obama won Catholics in Vermont; he lost them in Rhode Island. Catholicism in those two states is not all that different.) Now -- the perception that Obama has a Catholic problem is nothing to skip church over. One way to reach white working class voters is to engage them through their religious identity, as Obama's Catholic advisory council is doing. And, of course, the very idea that Obama has a Catholic problem becomes as poisonous as an actual Catholic problem if his campaign cannot effectively rebut the charge.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com...atholic_pro.php

In any case, all of this becomes pretty irrelevant when you keep in mind that the exit polls that you are basing your argument off contain two DEMOCRATIC choices... when faced with a democratic and republican candidate, the numbers will turn out quite differently.

36% of Americans are pro-life on abortion. 24% are Catholic. 23% are Protestant Evangelicals (nearly all of whom voted for Bush in 2004). You do the math. The Catholic vote was split 50-50 in 2004, and would be split 50-50 in 2008 aside from the fact that 72% of Americans (basically all non-Evangelicals) disapprove of the job the current Republican administration has done.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I live here, you know. I'm not making statements about your homestate.

Your statement was that Latinos hate black people.

quote:

Wait, let me pull up a poll of the Latinos in this area that are racist, and I'll get back to you, dumbass.

I'd love to see data that supports this. Bring it on.

And fyi, if you show me a poll that says 55% of Latinos voted for Hillary, I will show you a poll that says 55% of women voted for Hillary followed by my conclusion that "women hate male people."

quote:

Not to mention, read up, it's not some big secret that Hillary wins large majorities of Latinos, I just posted an article in the last page about it.

In some states. Could that be because Bill has established ties among Latinos? Hmm.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I apologize for the harsh tone - I'd thought we had this exact same argument in this thread earlier, but it seems it was a different thread.

No problemo, no harm done. I'll post the edit I just made to my previous post, which I think is a good indication of the types of Latinos that vote and background info you may see as more informative to support my statement:

quote:

Also, for the record, I'm half Hispanic, my entire neighborhood is Hispanic, all my friends past and present are Hispanic, as are/were their families. At times, they seem more racist against black people than any white people I've met, especially Cubans, which are the largest, most educated and prosperous of the Hispanics around this area. In the past, many have gone for Republicans, as they are very conservative. Also, they come out in droves to vote and have a very strong way of organizing when campaigns and elections come around. As a matter of fact, both Obama and Hillary came here twice each. They came earlier on to the more African-American neighborhoods of Newark and southside Jersey City. And then they both came only a mile up to get the Hispanic vote. It's the most densely populated area in the state and whoever wins in Hudson County wins the state.

Yes, it is a general statement, but when pertaining to my area which is 1) where I was born, brought up, and schooled, and 2) the largest population density in New Jersey, I think this sort of generality has some bearing. And of course, I in no way implied this is the case throughout the rest of the 50 states. One Latino community has different roots and countries and nationalities than another, etc. I hope that explains more where I'm coming from, RE: New Jersey.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Yikes, time to get to work haha... Thanks for keeping me on my feet, even if we do disagree; it's always better to disagree and have a good conversation with someone who's informed, than have a 10 second conversation with someone who knows nothing more than that he's voting for Obama "because of his vision", or with a Billary supporter, for that matter haha... Have a nice week!

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco haha Well, way to put your foot in Mr. Opus' mouth.

Bleh. I just ate some Jamaican jerk chicken. No need for toe-jam as desert.......

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco For every 5 or 6 or 7 electoral-vote state Obama **MIGHT** take in November (purple states), according to you at least, he puts at risk a Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan, etc. As far as Penn. is concerned, GHB said it himself, it's a racist state! Sad but true, that could make a huge impact in November. We don't know!!! That's the thing. If Clinton wins what we won in 2004 plus an extra state here and there (an Ohio or a Nevada maybe?), there we go!...

First, the difference wasn't that huge that I don't think that he'll lose PA. While I realize that many Republicans didn't vote because it was a finished nomination.

Also, I hate to ruin the argument that Obama supporters are giving to say that he's been converting Independents and Republicans who've switched to Democrats, but I will: Some of these people are switching to vote for Hillary. In PA, you could switch parties as late as 3/24/08, long after Super Tuesday when Obama had pulled ahead, you could vote for Hillary to skew things. Rush Limbaugh has long supported this policy because it's a good, devious way to win in November. Hillary has a 54% unfavorable rating. That doesn't fare too well for her election chances.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes...

That's funny since Bill used the "if Democrats were Republicans (whose election process much more closely resembles the electoral system), Hillary would be winning" argument. And sadly, I'll admit Jon Stewart is no genius, because that was the first thing I thought when I heard him make the argument.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I think I'll ask the Supreme Court about Al Gore's situation. And John Kerry... well... he wasn't as strong a candidate as either Hillary or Barack would be.

Kerry's "unfavorable ratings" were nowhere near Hillary's.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco At times, they seem more racist against black people than any white people I've met, especially Cubans, which are the largest, most educated and prosperous of the Hispanics around this area. In the past, many have gone for Republicans, as they are very conservative. Also, they come out in droves to vote and have a very strong way of organizing when campaigns and elections come around.

You do realize that the Republican stance on Cuba contributes significantly to this. If many of the Cubans who are in Jersey were happy with the communist status of Cuba, they would have remained in Cuba. This is one of the reasons why there are so many issues regarding this election with Floridians (whose votes shouldn't count anyhow because they broke the rules for the nominating party).

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov See above for total lack of substantiation to a pretty major claim.

substantiate that in the general election obama will get republicans, as well as more independents than clinton. It's pure conjecture to think that his success with those groups against a fellow democrat in the democratic race will follow in the general election against a republican. in addition, i'm sure there is a large group of conservative democrats that support clinton and won't vote obama for the simple reason that he is black. whether we like it or not race is a relevant issue for many people.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For fuck's sake, shut up. That is so categorically false it is ridiculous. If you're going to continue to make egregious accusations and insinuations it would behoove you to post something to support them.

how exactly are you supposed to support that sort of statement? that's a real world observation that many people who live in these communities can see. People usually don't volunteer their prejudices for a college paper. In the real world people hate people and don't make it obvious for outsiders to monitor. if you don't think that there is a general discontent between the black community and the Hispanic community then you are delusional. perhaps your childhood in white Minnesota didn't expose you to that reality.