Jophlel wrote:
Sure, that was my point. Some people act as though blacks only voted for Obama because he's black. If they got a black guy on the ballot, you'd split that significantly.
Obama did run against a black guy for the IL senate seat, Alan Keyes. Trounced him. Granted Keyes was a miserable candidate and completely whack-a-doodle so he's not the best test, but I can certainly say that he didn't peel apart the African-American vote based on race and some unreleased groundswell for blacks just wishing they could vote Republican.
Republicans seem to have a very shallow notion of how to get minorities to vote for them.
Obama did run against a black guy for the IL senate seat, Alan Keyes. Trounced him. Granted Keyes was a miserable candidate and completely whack-a-doodle so he's not the best test, but I can certainly say that he didn't peel apart the African-American vote based on race and some unreleased groundswell for blacks just wishing they could vote Republican.
Republicans seem to have a very shallow notion of how to get minorities to vote for them.
There is still a level of common sense necessary to get the sheeple, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. If both people are of the same demographic, then you can't say that one would win over the over because of their demographics, because they are the same. However, if the candidates are of different demographics, it is possible to get votes based on demographics, especially if its the first, but you can't be a "whack-a-doodle" and expect to get it. That's why Operation Sarah Palin failed.
Jophiel wrote:
Republicans seem to have a very shallow notion of how to get minorities to vote for them.
Yes, they are desperate. They realize that they can't win solely off the white man vote anymore. Losing 50% of the women is crucial, given that women make up a large percentage of the vote.