Archive

Alabama and Mississippi Republican Voters

  • Mooney44Cards
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/other-notes-from-alabama-and-mississippi.html#more
    -There's considerable skepticism about Barack Obama's religion with Republican voters in them. In Mississippi only 12% of voters think Obama's a Christian to 52% who think he's a Muslim and 36% who are not sure. In Alabama just 14% think Obama's a Christian to 45% who think he's a Muslim and 41% who aren't sure.
    ...
    -Alabama's pretty much on board with interracial marriage, with 67% of voters thinking it should be legal to 21% who think it should not be. There's still some skepticism in Mississippi though- only 54% of voters think it should be legal, while 29% believe it should be illegal. Newt cleans up with the 'interracial marriage should be illegal' crowd in both states. He's up 40-27 on Romney with them in Mississippi and 37-28 with them in Alabama.
    That's just a sample, there's quite a few other gems in there.

    Now, I'm not dumb enough or a big enough idiot to try and say "LOL look, these are typical Republicans" but my god.....a good portion of these voters' beliefs belong in the 19th century or have absolutely no basis in reality at all.

    The problem with the Republican party and why many to most of them could never count on my vote, is because these are the voters that a lot of candidates pander to. I respected John McCain in 2008 because at least he actually had the balls to say "No" to people that said Obama was a Muslim to his face.

    I know the majority of people on this board are Republican and/or conservative, I wonder what you think about this. Are they a necessary evil of a certain political ideology? Do YOU think this way? Are Republican politicians partially to blame for letting these ideas go on?

    Discuss.
  • Thinthickbigred
    Put your robes away Kluxman get with the times . Love and Peace
  • pmoney25
    I do not really think it has anything to do with political ideology as much as it does the enviroment and social culture of people in Mississippi and Alabama.Being Poor and uneducated will lead to thoughts like that. It wasn't that long ago Democrats were opposing the Civil Rights Movement and Roberty Byrd was in the KKK.

    Any intelligent person let alone conservative would not believe that interracial marriage is wrong. You will never cure crazy.
  • Mooney44Cards
    pmoney25;1114159 wrote:I do not really think it has anything to do with political ideology as much as it does the enviroment and social culture of people in Mississippi and Alabama.Being Poor and uneducated will lead to thoughts like that. It wasn't that long ago Democrats were opposing the Civil Rights Movement and Roberty Byrd was in the KKK.

    Any intelligent person let alone conservative would not believe that interracial marriage is wrong. You will never cure crazy.
    I'm not saying Republican party leads to these thoughts or anything like that. I guess I'm asking, do Republican politicians bear any responsibility at all for this line of thought continuing? I mean, interracial marriage is one thing, I doubt a politician is gonna change someone's mind on that, but the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing is obviously conveniently ignored by a lot of Republican politicians because it favors them to have people believe that. Is it irresponsible?
  • isadore
    gosh they get to hope for the good old days with Ron Paul hoping to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow.
  • believer
    Mooney44Cards;1114204 wrote:I'm not saying Democratic party leads to these thoughts or anything like that. I guess I'm asking, do Democratic politicians bear any responsibility at all for this line of thought continuing? I mean, birth control is one thing, I doubt a politician is gonna change someone's mind on that, but the whole "Republicans want to subjugate women" thing is obviously conveniently ignored by a lot of Democratic politicians because it favors them to have people believe that. Is it irresponsible?
    fixed
  • gerb131
    Cue Bamabuck lol
  • Mooney44Cards
    believer;1114227 wrote:fixed
    Congrats!! it only took 4 posts to turn this into a Republican vs. Democrat thread!

    Is it possible to discuss one thing without deflecting it to the other party?
  • I Wear Pants
    Mooney44Cards;1114247 wrote:Congrats!! it only took 4 posts to turn this into a Republican vs. Democrat thread!

    Is it possible to discuss one thing without deflecting it to the other party?
    They can't.

    We've got the guys on here that will say Obama has done a really good job (not true) and the guys who say that he's the antichrist/etc/etc (also not true).

    The other guy has to be evil/stupid/lazy/racist/some insult about minorities/etc because otherwise you actually have to look at issues involving humans and decisions that aren't always clear cut. Demonizing everyone that disagrees is simply a trick to avoid actually having to discuss things for both sides.
  • Mooney44Cards
    I Wear Pants;1114309 wrote:They can't.

    We've got the guys on here that will say Obama has done a really good job (not true) and the guys who say that he's the antichrist/etc/etc (also not true).

    The other guy has to be evil/stupid/lazy/racist/some insult about minorities/etc because otherwise you actually have to look at issues involving humans and decisions that aren't always clear cut. Demonizing everyone that disagrees is simply a trick to avoid actually having to discuss things for both sides.
    The sad part is that people don't realize that they've fallen victim to the "us vs. them" groupthink. Its the problem with politics and political discussion on both sides of the aisle, intellect takes a back seat to demonization and us vs. them hyperbole. But the politicians use that. It keeps the two-party system viable if they actually group every issue into one corner or another and then draw a line in the sand.
  • majorspark
    Mooney44Cards;1114056 wrote:I know the majority of people on this board are Republican and/or conservative, I wonder what you think about this.
    To me the poll's purpose reeks of politics with a sprinkling of race baiting. It focuses on two states with a population of less than 8 million with an infamous history of institutional racism at the governmental level. Assuming the numbers are accurate I have a couple of observations. Mississippi has the largest proportional black population of roughly 37%. The poll states only 12% of Mississippi voters think Obama is a Christian. Lets assume all the 12% are black. That leaves 25% (a 2-1 majority) of black voters who would predominantly vote democrat falling into the category of believing he is a muslim or not sure. You can apply the same to Alabama with a 26% black population.
    Mooney44Cards;1114056 wrote:Are they a necessary evil of a certain political ideology?
    No.
    Mooney44Cards;1114056 wrote: Do YOU think this way?
    No.
    Mooney44Cards;1114056 wrote: Are Republican politicians partially to blame for letting these ideas go on?
    Nationally, no.
  • I Wear Pants
    "Finally there's considerable skepticism about evolution among GOP voters in both Alabama and Mississippi. In Alabama only 26% of voters believe in it, while 60% do not. In Mississippi just 22% believe in it, while 66% do not. Romney wins the 'voters who believe in evolution' vote (33-27 over Gingrich in Alabama, 38-32 over Gingrich in Mississippi.) Santorum wins the 'voters who don't believe in evolution' vote (34-33 over Gingrich in both Alabama and Mississippi with Romney at 26%)"

    Shoot. Them. All.
  • gut
    As far as believing Obama is Muslim, I think you get similar results around America for different types of questions. People believe what their friends believe. They seek out bloggers and talk show hosts that validate their beliefs. They do not objectively inform themselves, and in rare cases they do they don't understand. Really just a black & white example of how ignorant the average American is, but you will get similar results on many issues.
  • believer
    Mooney44Cards;1114247 wrote:Congrats!! it only took 4 posts to turn this into a Republican vs. Democrat thread!

    Is it possible to discuss one thing without deflecting it to the other party?
    Simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your thread.

    Had your thread been written about how Repubs AND Dems both show political bias (IE: "Are they a necessary evil of a certain political ideologies? Do YOU think this way? Are Republican and Democratic politicians partially to blame for letting these ideas go on?") your thread might have some merit.

    Instead you attempt a mildly subtle attack on Republican racism and expect it to go unchallenged? But I can't blame you. You simply tried the same tactic you've learned from the politically biased MSM.

    I'll call that out every single time. This thread is a huge fail.
  • BAMABUCK
    gerb131;1114238 wrote:Cue Bamabuck lol
    The war of northern agression was over states rights and where tax money was being spent,slavery was added on for a moral purpose.With out a moral purpose to the war the north would not have been behind the cause. More on that later...
    I do not think Obama is a muslim.I strongly disagree with his policies and see America in a completely different light than he. I see less racism here in Alabama than I did in Ohio.
    To the question- Politicians are not responsible for what people think-the media is-Politicians are elected by people to guide policy that the people feel is correct(theoretically). These off topic subjects(from the media) grab attention(headlines,news time) to keep the citizens eye off the ball. If we listen to a 3 minute story on Lindsy Lohan and a 30 second blurb about militay aide to Yemen the focus is on some dumb w$%^@ not what the government is doing.
  • jhay78
    I Wear Pants;1114428 wrote:"Finally there's considerable skepticism about evolution among GOP voters in both Alabama and Mississippi. In Alabama only 26% of voters believe in it, while 60% do not. In Mississippi just 22% believe in it, while 66% do not. Romney wins the 'voters who believe in evolution' vote (33-27 over Gingrich in Alabama, 38-32 over Gingrich in Mississippi.) Santorum wins the 'voters who don't believe in evolution' vote (34-33 over Gingrich in both Alabama and Mississippi with Romney at 26%)"

    Shoot. Them. All.
    For someone who is obsessed with the thought of Rick Santorum imposing a theocracy upon us all and telling us all what we should believe and how we should live you sure are intolerant of people who hold different views on the origins of life.
    gut;1114430 wrote:As far as believing Obama is Muslim, I think you get similar results around America for different types of questions. People believe what their friends believe. They seek out bloggers and talk show hosts that validate their beliefs. They do not objectively inform themselves, and in rare cases they do they don't understand. Really just a black & white example of how ignorant the average American is, but you will get similar results on many issues.
    If someone asks you if Obama is a Muslim, you say "No" and then throw the question back at them: "What's wrong with being a Muslim? Is there something about Muslims that makes them unfit to hold public office?" Then watch them squirm in their seats and dance around that one.

    I don't believe he's a Muslim, but his father was one, his middle name is common in the Muslim world, and he attended a Muslim school as a child. So he may have more sympathies toward Islam than the average American, but that doesn't make him a Muslim.
  • gut
    jhay78;1114723 wrote: If someone asks you if Obama is a Muslim, you say "No" and then throw the question back at them: "What's wrong with being a Muslim? Is there something about Muslims that makes them unfit to hold public office?" Then watch them squirm in their seats and dance around that one.
    I didn't hear how the question was asked. I don't really see anything wrong or implied with asking someone if they know what religion the POTUS is. Now how people might act on such disinformation is another thing, but the question in and of itself only goes to show what a person knows or doesn't know about the POTUS.
  • Mooney44Cards
    believer;1114433 wrote:Simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your thread.

    Had your thread been written about how Repubs AND Dems both show political bias (IE: "Are they a necessary evil of a certain political ideologies? Do YOU think this way? Are Republican and Democratic politicians partially to blame for letting these ideas go on?") your thread might have some merit.

    Instead you attempt a mildly subtle attack on Republican racism and expect it to go unchallenged? But I can't blame you. You simply tried the same tactic you've learned from the politically biased MSM.

    I'll call that out every single time. This thread is a huge fail.
    But the article didn't say anything about Democratic voters. I didn't have any numbers to base what bias Democratic voters might hold and if/how Democratic politicians had any blame in it.

    Do YOU have any polls/numbers to show that bias where we can then quantify if/when/how Democratic politicians have contributed to that? Until you do, GTFO with your statements. The very fact that you perceived it as a "subtle attack" on Republican racism and then grab your shield and sword to white knight against Democrats is sad and shows how little you care to actually discuss the issue at hand without just making a general statement.

    THIS thread is about the article posted. If you'd like to make it about something else, you're more than welcome to start your own thread. I don't feel like I unfairly mischaracterized Republicans in general, I asked if some politicians are responsible for this line of thinking. I didn't accuse the entire GOP of propagating this. I didn't point any fingers. If you think asking questions is the equivalent of an attack, then I see that you are incapable of taking part in any sort of civilized debate where questions are asked and answered.

    majorspark managed to answer the question honestly without attacking my motives or anything. Maybe you should take a few pointers from him.
  • UncleYoder
    majorspark;1114420 wrote:To me the poll's purpose reeks of politics with a sprinkling of race baiting. It focuses on two states with a population of less than 8 million with an infamous history of institutional racism at the governmental level. Assuming the numbers are accurate I have a couple of observations. Mississippi has the largest proportional black population of roughly 37%. The poll states only 12% of Mississippi voters think Obama is a Christian. Lets assume all the 12% are black. That leaves 25% (a 2-1 majority) of black voters who would predominantly vote democrat falling into the category of believing he is a muslim or not sure. You can apply the same to Alabama with a 26% black population. (/quote)

    Lies, Damn lies and statistics. You missed the part where it says they were polling Republican voters.
  • isadore
    BAMABUCK;1114695 wrote:The war of northern agression was over states rights and where tax money was being spent,slavery was added on for a moral purpose.With out a moral purpose to the war the north would not have been behind the cause. More on that later...
    I do not think Obama is a muslim.I strongly disagree with his policies and see America in a completely different light than he. I see less racism here in Alabama than I did in Ohio.
    To the question- Politicians are not responsible for what people think-the media is-Politicians are elected by people to guide policy that the people feel is correct(theoretically). These off topic subjects(from the media) grab attention(headlines,news time) to keep the citizens eye off the ball. If we listen to a 3 minute story on Lindsy Lohan and a 30 second blurb about militay aide to Yemen the focus is on some dumb w$%^@ not what the government is doing.
    The North fought first to save the Union then to end slavery. The Southern leadership left the Union and fought the War in order to protect slavery. Starting in the 1960s the White Citizens Council switched to the Republican Party as that party betrayed its roots.
  • Mooney44Cards
    LOL at somebody actually referring to it as "The War of Northern Agression" in the 21st century.
  • BAMABUCK
    Mooney44Cards;1115315 wrote:LOL at somebody actually referring to it as "The War of Northern Agression" in the 21st century.
    http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm
    Being a Yankee by birth and living in the state that"dare to defend its rights" has been eye opening.
    Look at both sides of the story. Once more the media portrayal of events and people in the South are clouding reality.
    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
    Ben Franklin

    We as a nation are fortunate the union was preserved and the USA is able to exist.
  • Mooney44Cards
    BAMABUCK;1115456 wrote:http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm
    Being a Yankee by birth and living in the state that"dare to defend its rights" has been eye opening.
    Look at both sides of the story. Once more the media portrayal of events and people in the South are clouding reality.
    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
    Ben Franklin

    We as a nation are fortunate the union was preserved and the USA is able to exist.
    Except for the fact that "The War of Northern Aggression" places a negative connotation on the Union, much the same as "The War of Southern Secession" does the same to the Confederacy. Hence why it's referred to as The American Civil War, or simply The Civil War, which places neither belligerent in a more negative light than the other.

    Please don't presume to lecture me about the dynamics of the Civil War.
  • isadore
    BAMABUCK;1115456 wrote:http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm
    Being a Yankee by birth and living in the state that"dare to defend its rights" has been eye opening.
    Look at both sides of the story. Once more the media portrayal of events and people in the South are clouding reality.
    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
    Ben Franklin

    We as a nation are fortunate the union was preserved and the USA is able to exist.
    Initial cause of secession from South Carolina, the first state to secedes
    This is its declaration of independence
    http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm
    And the cause is not tariff but slavery.
    Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, Cornerstone Speech on the new government
    The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African
    slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
    　
    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
    　
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76
    　
    In the Confederate Constitution
    Whereas the original constitution did not even use the word slavery, but "Person held to Service or Labour" which included whites in indentured servitude, the confederate constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name.
    Continuing the US government's prohibition of importation of slaves after the year 1808, which is in the Articles of the confederate constitution unlike the U.S. Constitution, the confederate constitution does make explicit the legal protection of owning slaves.
    No
    bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]
    The constitution likewise prohibited the Confederate Congress from abolishing or limiting slavery in Confederate territories (unlike the United States, where, prior to the Dred Scott decision, Congress had prohibited slavery in some territories). This did not necessarily mean that individual states could not ban slavery. However, section 2 of Article IV specified that "citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired".
    A proposal to prohibit free states from joining the Confederate States of America was narrowly defeated, largely due to the efforts of moderates such as Alexander Stephens. Stephens believed that economics might persuade free states with strong economic ties to the South to join the Confederacy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution#Slavery
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
    　
  • majorspark
    UncleYoder;1115009 wrote:Lies, Damn lies and statistics.
    Incorrect. I would not lie.
    UncleYoder;1115009 wrote: You missed the part where it says they were polling Republican voters.
    Correct. I guess the bolded part got me.