Daily Caller: When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack

[Landryslegend]

You know what, for all the crying and bs, Barack is not that bad. Look, we haven't had a domestic terrorsit attack, and no worthless wars are being declared? When is this wha wha stuff going to stop? Forget Sarah Palin, the real issue is, would people be as critical about Barack if he was a white male? All these articles, tea parties, the anti-christ Black Panther party, all this nonesense. Where was this passion when Bush was blowing smoke up our butts about the WMD? Is it Palin, barack, or our perception of what suppose to be?

I find it amusing that someone would bring up racism as a reason why masses of people could possibly not be in support of President Obama's policies. Especially when you consider........THIS

Obama collected apprx 43% of the white vote

Obama collected apprx 96% of the black vote

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

So lemme get this straight.....It IS racist to not support someone because of the color of their skin, but it IS NOT racist to support someone because of the color of their skin?????? Mmmmmm....O.K

Having said that, not all voters voted or didnt vote for a particular candidate due to racism. Even still, those are pretty staggering numbers to say the least.

[Bucaro]

I find it amusing that someone would bring up racism as a reason why masses of people could possibly not be in support of President Obama's policies. Especially when you consider........THIS

Obama collected apprx 43% of the white vote

Obama collected apprx 96% of the black vote

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

So lemme get this straight.....It IS racist to not support someone because of the color of their skin, but it IS NOT racist to support someone because of the color of their skin?????? Mmmmmm....O.K

Having said that, not all voters voted or didnt vote for a particular candidate due to racism. Even still, those are pretty staggering numbers to say the least.

Kerry got 88% in 2004 and Gore got 91% in 2000. African Americans are overwhelmingly democrats. Nice try though....An extra 5% for the first african american presidential candidate with a shot has nothing to due with racism, its human nature. Take a look at the percentage of the Catholic vote that Kennedy got when he ran.

[Landryslegend]

Kerry got 88% in 2004 and Gore got 91% in 2000. African Americans are overwhelmingly democrats. Nice try though....

Which begs the question to be asked.........WHY? WHY are A.A's overwhelmingly democrats? Wazzzzzzup with that

[Beans]

Of course, to be fair, most of those same people didn't have a problem with Dubya spending unfunded trillions of dollars.

But, I suspect, you knew that.

Hey, check this out. :thumbsup:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB123871911466984927.html

Enough is enough.

[Beans]

Kerry got 88% in 2004 and Gore got 91% in 2000. African Americans are overwhelmingly democrats. Nice try though....An extra 5% for the first african american presidential candidate with a shot has nothing to due with racism, its human nature. Take a look at the percentage of the Catholic vote that Kennedy got when he ran.

Catholicism is a belief system. Apples and oranges. Next.

Racism is okay if it's making history. :thumbsup:

(Just being a smartass on the second comment)

[jnhay]

Is there not a link to the thread?

[Bucaro]

Catholicism is a belief system. Apples and oranges. Next.

Racism is okay if it's making history. :thumbsup:

(Just being a smartass on the second comment)

The belief system of Catholics had nothing to do with why that number jumped. He got 80%+ of the catholic vote that year which is considerably more than any other year. He actually advocated (while campaigning) Catholicism and religion being only part of the private domain and not the public which angered the church. The point of the post was post was to show that the change in voting percentage was minumal if not negligible compared to past years. I can't see how a 5% change in the percentage of voting for a particular group constitutes racism...idiocy is okay as long as you can hide behind a computer screen....(just being smartass as well)

[Beans]

The belief system of Catholics had nothing to do with why that number jumped. He got 80%+ of the catholic vote that year which is considerably more than any other year. He actually advocated (while campaigning) Catholicism and religion being only part of the private domain and not the public which angered the church. The point of the post was post was to show that the change in voting percentage was minumal if not negligible compared to past years. I can't see how a less than 5% change in the percentage of voting for a particular group constitutes racism...idiocy is okay as long as you can hide behind a computer screen....(just being smartass as well)

Dude, it was only 5% or what have you because that brought the total to 98%, which is about as high as it can go. Math not your strong suit?

My post was just over your head.

[Larry]

I find it amusing that someone would bring up racism as a reason why masses of people could possibly not be in support of President Obama's policies. Especially when you consider........THIS

Obama collected apprx 43% of the white vote

Obama collected apprx 96% of the black vote

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

So lemme get this straight.....It IS racist to not support someone because of the color of their skin, but it IS NOT racist to support someone because of the color of their skin?????? Mmmmmm....O.K

Having said that, not all voters voted or didnt vote for a particular candidate due to racism. Even still, those are pretty staggering numbers to say the least.

:secret:Your statistics do not even remotely imply what you're claiming.

But don't let that stop you.

[Larry]

Which begs the question to be asked.........WHY? WHY are A.A's overwhelmingly democrats? Wazzzzzzup with that

Funny, it's been that way ever since the Republican Party decided that the key to taking the South away from the Democrats was to attract "negrophobe whites", because there were more of them than there were blacks, and the blacks weren't going to vote for them, anyway.

[Hunter44]

Then you're a fool.

You watch a lot of Beck, Hannity and you listen to Rush I bet.

NO ONE, from the list, those quoted and those not quoted, has stepped forward and denied these are accurate.

Well then, it must be true. My bad.

[Bucaro]

Dude, it was only 5% or what have you because that brought the total to 98%, which is about as high as it can go. Math not your strong suit?

My post was just over your head.

Actually math and reading must not be your strong suits. It went from 91% in 2000 to 96% in 2008, this represents approximately a 5% difference. If it went from 41%-46% that would be a 10% change, therefore larger. Voting patterns that change by small amounts happen every election cycle in almost every demographic and are not that significant (the african american vote for Gore was 5% larger than for Clinton). Your post was not over my head, it wasn't over a 3rd graders head, it was just incorrect and frankly idiotic. But, after reading several of your other posts, not surprising at all. I am done feeding moron trolls

[jnhay]

Is that really how you calculate a change in percentage?^^^^I know I suck at math, but it doesn't seem right to take a percentage of a percentage like that.

[Beans]

Actually math and reading must not be your strong suits. It went from 91% in 2000 to 96% in 2008, this represents approximately a 5% difference. If it went from 41%-46% that would be a 10% change, therefore larger. Voting patterns that change by small amounts happen every election cycle in almost every demographic and are not that significant (the african american vote for Gore was 5% larger than for Clinton). Your post was not over my head, it wasn't over a 3rd graders head, it was just incorrect and frankly idiotic. But, after reading several of your other posts, not surprising at all. I am done feeding moron trolls

This is not even worth responding to.

[Bucaro]

Is that really how you calculate a change in percentage?^^^^I know I suck at math, but it doesn't seem right to take a percentage of a percentage like that.

Apples to apples is the best way, which is the simple change in the number of votes as a % of total votes. I was just making a point . The bottom line Is that it jumped 4 pts from Clinton to gore which is a normal occurrence and not large enough to validate any moronic racist conspiracy theories

[Bucaro]

Is that really how you calculate a change in percentage?^^^^I know I suck at math, but it doesn't seem right to take a percentage of a percentage like that.

Apples to apples is the best way, which is the simple change in the number of votes as a % of total votes. I was just making a point that it is almost negligible at those levels. The bottom line Is that it jumped 4 pts from Clinton to gore which is a normal occurrence and not large enough to validate any moronic racist conspiracy theories

[Beans]

Is that really how you calculate a change in percentage?^^^^I know I suck at math, but it doesn't seem right to take a percentage of a percentage like that.

This is how to think about it. First of all, the max is 1, or 100%, so we are already nearly at the limit. Our sample space is comprised of all AA voters. 88% (or whatever) voted for Kerry. This means that 12% of our sample space voted other. We will consider this 12% that voted other a new sample space, called AAs that voted other. Obama got 96% of the black vote. That's an 8% increase in absolute terms from the previous election. That means that Obama made a 66% headway into the AAs that voted other. I am willing to bet that is significant. Not just some normal election cycle swing.

Don't also forget all the first time voters. I wasn't even really trying to argue with him about this. I just made a smart ass comment. He pressed.

[Bucaro]

It is not significant because it is 66% of an increadibly small amount of people which is exactly equal in the number of people that constitutes the 8% increase from 2000 (if there number of african american voters was held constant as in your example) there is no difference...that is how statistics works. So when it goes up 4% from Clinton to Gore it is essentially the same difference from Gore to Obama, the significance does not change. You literally have no idea about what your talking about with regards to statistics. Kerry's numbers were down accross the board and he got killed in the general election. Total number of African American voters was up 5% from 2004 but if they didn't vote at all, Obama still would have won by a wide margin.

[Mad Mike]

So, a hothead liberal (who isn't even a journalist) goes on a jounalist message board says "this is bull! We ought to go after them this way!" and one person (from Mother Jones) agrees with her.

Ergo, the "liberal media" coordinates its attacks!!!!!

I'm sorry, but that doesn't even fly in Kilmerland.

Dude please....

I agree that there is no smoking gun showing mainstream reporters collaborating to manipulate the media on a large scale.

HOWEVER there are like-minded liberal reporters who are part of the main stream media INCLUDING EDITORS on that site being influenced and sharing ideas. That's no small thing and if your own liberal bias were not rotting your brain you would admit it.

Honestly man. You are one of the most intelligent people on this board but you constantly disappoint me posts like this.

Bias, Thy name is Predicto.

[Beans]

It is not significant because it is 66% of an increadibly small amount of people which is exactly equal in the number of people that constitutes the 8% increase from 2000 (if there number of african american voters was held constant as in your example) there is no difference...that is how statistics works. So when it goes up 4% from Clinton to Gore it is essentially the same difference from Gore to Obama, the significance does not change. You literally have no idea about what your talking about with regards to statistics. Kerry's numbers were down accross the board and he got killed in the general election. Total number of African American voters was up 5% from 2004 but if they didn't vote at all, Obama still would have won by a wide margin.

You're a lost cause.

[Larry]

You're a lost cause.

If, by that, you mean, "he ain't buying what you're selling", then I suspect you're correct.

[Beans]

If, by that, you mean, "he ain't buying what you're selling", then I suspect you're correct.

The guy literally has no idea what he is talking about. He looking at it from the simplest level (he can't even get the numbers right), or "apples to apples" as he put it.

Oh, and he literally has no idea "how statistics work". This was the most obvious thing from his rant.

I was trying to break it down into a layman's example. That is all.

Truth is, you would have to run a litany of statistical tests to see if there was any significance. His neanderthal method of simply looking at percentage points is cute at best. You would have to compare numerous variables. You would have to take in account his increase amongst voters of other races. Standard deviations and variances must be calculated. Confidence intervals must be looked at. This would take too much time and effort for me to do for a message board argument.

However, the eyeball test works quite well in some cases.:pfft:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Late to the game for this thread.

Look when your candidate is incredibly ill-informed, poorly spoken, with some pretty out there ideas and you hide her away for two weeks keeping her from speaking to the media at all...leaving everyone to only poor over her past and her prior remarks and associations...don't blame the journalists for finding that and putting it in print.

Frankly, I think it's hilarious that people want to blame the media for Palin being a Wild Alaskan Dingbat, instead of actually admitting the fact that she was an awful choice for VP.

BTW, "What exactly does a Vice President do all day"? /facepalm

[Beans]

Late to the game for this thread.

Look when your candidate is incredibly ill-informed, poorly spoken, with some pretty out there ideas and you hide her away for two weeks keeping her from speaking to the media at all...leaving everyone to only poor over her past and her prior remarks and associations...don't blame the journalists for finding that and putting it in print.

Frankly, I think it's hilarious that people want to blame the media for Palin being a Wild Alaskan Dingbat, instead of actually admitting the fact that she was an awful choice for VP.

BTW, "What exactly does a Vice President do all day"? /facepalm

Palin is freaking retarded. That is all.

[twa]

Funny that the time in the OP was immediately after when she was first announced ASF.

Classic define the opponent strategy...being practiced by supposed:silly: journalists.