January 31, 2012

Yes! MSNBC returns to their old political elections music!

&feature=related

January 29, 2012

Good question.

And as often as the phrase is thrown around by everyone (me included) I don't think I have ever seen an exact definition of what region or states really define the deep south.

Here is how I do it.



Here is the election of 1948. Strom Thurmond ran as a 3rd party Dixiecrat. The states he carried are in green. In the history of our country there has been no single demographic group more hostile, cruel, terroristic and anti-American than a Southern Democrat. Please google the subject. You will not believe the stories of southern democrats and southern politics from the reconstructive era to the 1960s.



Here is the election of 1952. At this time the south was a democratic stronghold. This was because Lincoln was a republican when he saved our country with the Civil War. As a result following reconstruction, the south was entirely a democratic stronghold. In history terms it referred to as the "Solid Block." In the 1960s when a new breed of democrats (from the north) changed the democratic party and began to embrace civil rights, the south changed party affiliation. This is why today the south is the base of the republican party.




Here is the election of 1956. Again note the "Solid Block in the south. This is because the democratic party is the party of segregation. It is the party of racism. Basically this represents a nearly 100 year backlash against Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. A backlash that wouldn't be forgiven until democrats began to help with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Today the democrats are feeling the south's rage and we are currently involved in another 100 year backlash, this time against the Democrats for their support of civil rights. Basically which ever political party of the era is supporting equal rights for all americans, the south is violently against them. This is still very true today.






Here is the 1964 Presidential election. Barry Goldwater ran on a platform opposing civil rights. He was from Arizona. The states he carried are in blue. No need to elaborate further here.




Here is the 1968 Presidential election. George Wallace ran as a segregationist 3rd party candidate. The states he carried are shown in green/light green. The voters who supported his candidacy are the same demographic group that has given rise to the Tea Party today.



After 1968, the republicans saw an huge political opportunity. The "southern strategy" was born. And over the next 20 years the GOP took over the south. This is why today the south is republican.



Based on these maps, a clear historic pattern emerges on the terrible history of the south and what factors determine who is elected to public office from the region.

In today's terms I define the deep south as Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Oklahoma. Just missing the cut are Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. North Carolina and Virginia are no longer culturally deep south states. And of course, Florida, Missouri and Texas are not a deep south states either.

Good thread topic.

January 29, 2012

No... You are wrong my friend.

The South doesn't appear as red as it actually is because they have large black populations which vote democratically. Basically all the whites vote republican. All of the black vote democratically. This voting trend gives the South an artificial boost when final numbers are tallied.

By comparison, Utah's final state voting numbers appear worse than those found in the deep south because Utah doesn't have a large black minority population to boost the final totals.



But if we look at the white voting trends among Utah compared to the deep south we get a far different result.

Here are the numbers

In 2008 31% of white voters in Utah voted for Barack Obama. (by the way, that's actually a relatively good number)

Meanwhile here is his % of the white vote in the deep south



Alabama 10%
Arkansas 30%
Georgia 23%
Louisiana 14%
Mississippi 11%
Oklahoma 29%
S. Carolina 26%
Texas 26%
Utah 31%


Now, please take a good look at Utah and compare it to Alabama, Mississippi, and the other George Wallace segregationist states. Its really not even close. In fact if Obama had the white support in any of these southern states states that he had in Utah, he would have won all of the southern states GOING AWAY!

I don't think many people are aware that Obama has a greater percentage of white support in even a place like Utah, than he does in Texas, Georgia or other more traditional deep southern states.


Why does Obama get 31% of the white vote in a rural, heavily mormon state like Utah. But only 10% of the white vote in Alabama? And only 11% of the white vote in Mississippi? Only 14% of the white vote in Louisiana?

January 29, 2012

Thats a good map. I am going to steal it for my archive!

I learned something here. The South actually is not quite as rural as I would have initially thought. I would only add that basic population density state-wide is not the only indicator. Its almost a city vs country dispute.

For instance Minnesota has a population density less than what you would find in Alabama. Surprisingly it is about on par with Mississippi in terms of population. However, Minnesota has Minneapolis. This is a major city. Mississippi does not have a major city close to this size. Numbers indicate that the more urban an area, the more likely they are to vote Democratically.


Here is the breakdown on vote based on population demographic area in Presidential elections 2000-2008.

Presidential vote percentage by population density 2000-2008


2000-2004-2008



Population over 500,000
Democrat 71 -60-70%
Republican 26 -39-28%


Population 50,000 to 500,000
Democrat 57-49-59%
Republican 40-49-39%


Suburbs
Democrat 47-47-50%
Republican 49-52-48%



Population 10,000 to 50,000
Democrat 38-48-45%
Republican 59-50-53%



Rural areas
Democrat 37-39-45%
Republican 59-59-53%


We can see that as populations get more rural, they trend more Republican. So its actually more than just overall population density. For instance a state with a very large city (population over 500,000) surrounded by very rural areas, is actually more likely to trend Democratic than a state with no major city but many small towns with populations of 50,000 residents.


This actually makes sense. It is a fact that people who live in more urban areas are better educated, know people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds and are less likely to be religious compared to their rural counterparts.

And by the way, the above facts aren't just a southern issue. These numbers are largely just as true in a state like Pennsylvania as it is in Alabama. There is a reason why political pundits call PA the "T" state. It is Pittsburgh in the East. Philadelphia in the west. And Alabama in the middle. The voting patterns within the state of PA is a perfect example of the rural vs urban debate. And PA is not a southern state.


Good discussion. I understand that this thread is only here based on a 3-3 jury vote. But I hope critics can see that there is valuable information here. If they will only take the time to read what has been posted.

January 29, 2012

Its not that simple

Carter's win in 1976 was nearly 40 years ago. The southern strategy was still new. We know Carter would not have the same success today as he did in 1976, because since that time, we have nominated 2 other southern candidates, (Gore, Clinton). And neither candidate ran well among southern whites.

Plus, in 1980, when Ronald Reagan used the southern strategy, Jimmie Carter was wiped out in the south among southern whites, and Reagan was a hollywood actor from California! I also need to point out, (as I did in my other post) that Carter was running in the most favorable political environment or a democrat since at least 1964, in that he was running against Watergate. (And even then... he still ALMOST LOST!)

Clinton won in the south because there was a third party candidate which lessoned the impact of the white vote. This allowed him to skate by in several states that he would not have won had it been a traditional two party contest. Without Perot on the ballot, a lot of Clintons southern state wins would have been red states in 1992 and 1996.

Obama won NC and VA because of changing demographics. Not changing minds. NC and VA are battle-ground states today because they have seen lots of new residents. The residents moving to the state are more progressive than the traditional population. Among native white southerners, they are actually trending MORE REPUBLICAN. Not less.


I truly would like to believe it is possible in modern Presidential elections to have a Democrat honestly run strongly in the south. But its not likely to happen. What changes we have seen in the south are due to demographic changes and the "old traditional southern voter" literally dying off. Unfortunately, that appears to be the only way the south's terrible political history is going to be reversed.


Good discussion!

January 29, 2012

Agreed.

But even the midwest isn't close to as bad as the south.

As an example.

Democratic Presidential candidates in places like Alabama and Mississippi won't even get 10% of the white vote. It's that bad.

To put the numbers in proper perspective, in the 2004 Presidential election, Republican Presidential nominee George Bush had a greater percentage of the black vote in a battle ground state like Ohio, than John Kerry had of the white vote in Alabama and Mississippi.

And the problem is only getting worse.


When LBJ (who ironically was from Texas) said that by supporting equality for everyone he was giving the South away to the GOP for a generation he was wrong. He UNDERESTIMATED the hatred. It looks like he handed the South to the GOP for centuries beyond.

January 29, 2012

I posted this in another thread, but I think it is relevant here too.

Think about this.

The south for most of its political history was a democratic stronghold. This was because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he helped end slavery and save the country. Lincoln and the Republicans were so hated, that during the 1860 Presidential election, Lincoln's name wasn't even placed on the ballot in Alabama. For most of our history, there is nothing on earth meaner or or more blood-thristy than an old traditional southern Democrat. Because of Lincoln, from 1860 on, the Democrats controlled the south. In history, the south is even referred to as the "solid block" because it was so incredibly Democratic.

Then during the 1950s and 60s, a new breed of Democrats emerged. And YES THEY WERE PRIMARILY FROM THE NORTH. They supported civil rights, women's rights, the rights of workers etc. etc. etc.

And what happened?

From the 1960s to the 1980s the South went from a solid Democratic voting block to a southern Republican block! Old time dangerous southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond even changed parties in protest of equality for all! Today the south is solidly Republican. (What a coincidence!) Amazingly when I lived in South Carolina there were some very young people there who didn't even know that Thurmond spent the majority of his life as a Democrat. I had to explain to them that he only changed parties at the very end of his political career to try and stop people like his biracial daughter from having the opportunity for equal rights under the constitution. It is really amazing!

What ever side is in favor of education, science, equal rights, equality and social justice.... the south is on the other side.


Try this. Google a map of the 1860 Presidential election. And then google a map of the 2008 election. Look at the areas of the country where Lincoln and Obama did well (The North). Look where they did poorly (The South). It's almost scary how identical the two maps are for elections held 148 years apart.


Presidential Election 1860 (Lincoln in blue)



Presidential Election 2008 (Obama in red)


I often think I could get into a time machine and go off 500 years into the future. I would then look at a presidential political map of the last election. And with one look at the south, I would know which side is in the best interest of the country and all people. And which side is ignorant, racist, sexist, mean, etc. etc. etc.

Yes.. it is that simple. And for some reason, we are all suppose to dance around the giant pink elephant in the room and ignore how incredibly bad the south, its history, its culture and the political viewpoints of its people have been for America.


By definition, the confederate flag is the most anti-American symbol in the history of this country. To any historically accurate and objective American, (regardless of race) it should be far more offensive than even a Nazi war flag. But of course we can't correctly say that... because we have to protect THE HISTORIC TRUTH ABOUT THE SOUTH.

January 28, 2012

Years ago I use to worry about how FOX news dominated cable ratings.

However, it has become very apparent (at least on the Presidential level) that FOX news does nothing but preach to their masses.

In the 2008 Presidential election, 90% of Fox News viewers voted for McCain. On all other news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) their viewer vote breakdown was 60% Obama to 40% McCain. Even on MSNBC, which supposedly leans left, its audience voted 60% Obama to 40% McCain. In fact viewers who watched CNN actually voted for Obama in larger percentages than people who watched MSNBC for their primary news source.

In addition, the FOX news audience demographic is very old. And not very diverse.

I have found it very interesting that I believe every major GOP Presidential candidate has appeared on MSNBC (Morning Joe mostly). This is because this is where voters who decide elections are. In 2016, the odds that every Democratic presidential candidate will appear on FOX news (especially their morning show) is very small. There is simply no reason to go there. This is clearly becoming true for GOP contenders too.


The Fox news audience is increasingly made up of the 40% of voters who are going to vote GOP no matter what. And for that reason, to some degree, they have become the least relevant news operation of the big three cable news networks.

January 25, 2012

I'm sure they clip coupons as often as Mitt does laundry

?w=455

January 24, 2012

Again, you take assumptions...

that are not the median or even the average for big time D-1 College football.

1) The cost of a 4 year degree might be 80,000 dollars, but again and hopefully for the last time, players don't get 4 year scholarships. They get 1 year scholarships renewed at the school's discretion every year. Very few players in D-1 football reach 4 years. In essence, its the dangling carrot nobody ever reaches.

2) Normally you would be correct. However the injury rate in football is higher than what you would find in other sports. The risk of losing your "job" or scholarship to injury playing football is far higher than in other sports. Secondly, this isn't the corporate world. It's college. If it were a job they would be paid. In addition it is absolutely possible and perfectly legal for a student to lose his football scholarship despite being in good academic standing with the school. If the play on the field doesn't measure up to very subjective standards, the player loses his scholarship. Or more correctly, the scholarship is simply not "renewed" the following year.

3) Your statements regarding player injury is flat wrong.

4) You absolutely can lose a scholarship because of poor play. Even worse if a player wants to transfer for to another school, under NCAA rules the player must sit out a full year, before he can participate. This is done to try and limit the extremely limited power of players already "locked down" in 1 year scholarship offers. Basically coaches can move at will. Players are stuck.

5) I think you need a better education as to how college football really works.


Finally, I would be interested in any source material you could provide. You are very skilled at using vulgar language, and stating commonly held themes regarding college football. However you are very short on factual information.