Fantasy, fanciful reading, and whimsical paraphrasing of the written word do not understanding make, dim.

And never been right once. BTW I didn’t conduct the poll.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You ARE a liar, AND a fool. Of COURSE you didnt conduct the poll you are too stupid to even UNDERSTAND the poll. It doesnt make the claim you say it makes MORON.

Not as scary as the Dems denying a more qualified woman and instead giving the position to another liberal moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You really do have no shame. YOU are stupider than TOEJAM and you call Biden a moron? You arent fit to lick his boots. You are several rungs lower than pondscum on the evolutionary ladder you knuckledragging, troglydite. Your ignorance is stupendous to behold

#50

“Tracy__5 Says:
I find it more scary that all white Republicans (is there any other kind?) won’t vote for Obama because of the color of his skin.

*

fixed.”

Any other kind? Can you be more ignorant?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

He couldnt be more ignorant than YOU, that just simply isnt possible. No organic being could POSSIBLY be more ignorant than you are.

This is -more or less- how Twacy’s math & “logic” works:

some = 1/3
less likely = won’t

I am not sure how “some” became 1/3, as opposed to, say, 20% or even 9%, but there you have it.

I guess threesome in Tracyspeak means 90% ;-)

I guess it really didn’t take 200-plus posts to determine that, though, did it? But it was entertaining, wasn’t it?

Indeed. And what it doesn’t say is this: “1/3 of white Democrats won’t vote for Obama because of the color of his skin”.

over what you and others here think they ment.

Are you trying to tell us you are the only one here who actually knows what the title actually meant? Who are you? Miss Cleo?

Actually, backup, that was Ralph’s point. Tracy has been trying to argue against that…

Gregor, I stand corrected. Sorry, ralph. (you make a good point).

Does it say 1/3 as you originally claimed? Come on, dim. Acknowledge it doesn’t support your claim. You can do it.

They were strikes. Big ones, at that. You just happen to be too dense to see it, dim.

Everyone else in this thread has been telling you what I told you, dim. Why, even backup understood Ralph’s point.

She was too far to the right and people wanted change.

This is totally different from saying they will not vote for an African-American. They might prefer Malcom X over four more years of this disaster we are in.

Also this same 1/3rd of white Democrats might not see any of those negatives in Barack Obama. They might think of him as making an excellent president. Obama is leading by 4-5% now and after the Palin bump goes completely away and people realize the many TRILLIONS of dollars the Repubs have cost us, maybe he wins by 9-10%.

But thanks for agreeing that Tracy makes no sense.

Watch the troll’s head explode by the sheer cognitive dissonance…. them come back to life -like a weed- to repeat the same gibberish he’s been parroting for the last few hours.

I”t’s hard to imagine that Obama would have won the Democratic primary if one-third of the party electorate was out of play for him from the start.”

Tracy makes a good point here. If whites won’t vote for Obama, how did he get the Democratic nomination?

In other words, blacks have a much more extensive record of voting for white candidates than whites have of voting for blacks.

ralph. I can’t argue your point, but I imagine that you would concede there hasn’t been much opportunity for whites to build an extensive record of voting for blacks. Especially nationally.

I’m open to your point about blacks voting consistently in the 90’s for democrats. I think that situation is different than if whites are altering their voting habits based on Obama’s race. I’m agreeing with you.

It’s difficult for me to believe that it will significantly effect the outcome. I try to be objective, but I do think Obama’s race could influence me. Only for this reason: we’ve had forty and change white presidents, and a history of discrimination. I have to admit that I believe an Obama presidency (regardless of his ideology) might beneficially address past racial barriers to power and help quell some of the disenfranchisement of those that haven’t had more equal representation at a national level. It’s hard for me to believe that I am alone in that sentiment. If that is the case, Obama’s race may not be the liability that the AP poll suggests.

Tracy__5 Says:

It’s hard to imagine that Obama would have won the Democratic primary if one-third of the party electorate was out of play for him from the start.”

Maybe they are even more biased towards women.

Let’s see if I get this straight… Democratic primaries and caucuses set records for voter turnout, and routinely squashed Republican turnout. The two leading vote-getters were a black American and a white woman.

Yet Tracist suggests that reason Obama won the nomination, even though a full one-third of the electorate refused to vote for him because of his skin color, was because the Democratic Party is “even more biased towards women”.

Leaving aside the obvious misstatement (he must have meant “biased against women”, right? Otherwise why would that explain her loss?) how does that explain the result? Why did none of the white male candidates reap the benefits of all of this prejudice and sweep to victory?

Tracy, this can’t even make sense to you. Can it?