One of the biggest problems with the US election system is that there are only two viable parties. There are, of course many more parties besides Democrats and Republicans, but they are not viable. The Green Party is to the left of Democrats, the Libertarians are generally to the right of Republicans. We did have Independent Senators elected in Vermont and Maine, but those are more down to the persons than parties. Same with Mayor Bloomberg in New York City, an Independent who has been both a Republican and a Democrat. What is really needed is a third party between the Democrats and Republicans.
You have three viable parties in the UK. The Liberal Democrats are clearly third behind Labour and the Conservatives, but they are strong enough so that they can sway a national election where a coalition government needs to be formed. In the US, there is no enough cooperation, with a lack of coalition being one of the primary reasons.
Obviously the UK has its own political difficulties. But three spreads out the divisiveness and forces parties to work together when there is no majority.
One of the biggest problems with the US election system is that there are only two viable parties.
There are, of course many more parties besides Democrats and Republicans, but they are not viable. The Green Party is to the left of Democrats, the Libertarians are generally to the right of Republicans. We did have Independent Senators elected in Vermont and Maine, but those are more down to the persons than parties. Same with Mayor Bloomberg in New York City, an Independent who has been both a Republican and a Democrat. What is really needed is a third party between the Democrats and Republicans.
I agree with some of this. Whether or not they are viable ,they should be allowed to address the nation at the presidential debates , after all their candidates are running for president. If they are no threat to the status quo then let them speak. Let the people decide , not the commission on presidential debates. Maybe they are a major threat to the status quo! Maybe their policies might wake a few people up. But one thing is for sure, they will not be invited to the debates. So the people remain in the dark Why they even arrested presidential candidate Jill Stein of the Green party for having the cheek to turn up at a debate uninvited. Imagine the uproar if they arrested Romney for a similar offence:)). So what exactly is going on one wonders.
One of the biggest problems with the US election system is that there are only two viable parties. There are, of course many more parties besides Democrats and Republicans, but they are not viable. The Green Party is to the left of Democrats, the Libertarians are generally to the right of Republicans. We did have Independent Senators elected in Vermont and Maine, but those are more down to the persons than parties. Same with Mayor Bloomberg in New York City, an Independent who has been both a Republican and a Democrat. What is really needed is a third party between the Democrats and Republicans.
You have three viable parties in the UK. The Liberal Democrats are clearly third behind Labour and the Conservatives, but they are strong enough so that they can sway a national election where a coalition government needs to be formed. In the US, there is no enough cooperation, with a lack of coalition being one of the primary reasons.
Obviously the UK has its own political difficulties. But three spreads out the divisiveness and forces parties to work together when there is no majority.
I've never understood why we only get to vote on local representatives. An election to each department of state would provide a better reflection of voters views in each area of government and stop this silly basket of policies nonsense. It would also prevent the big parties from refusing to talk about subjects that are important to the electorate.
This is to assume that democracy is only about unwrapping Christmas presents (once every 4 years)... Be they red or blue? What about all of the discussions (like this one) the pilots and the crisis management ... Somehow the west need to find the fairest most afforable healthcare systems for the work force and old age and maybe the NHS is part of the answer. When it comes to transport, finance, welfare and defence / foreign policy well thats a different ball game...many ideas and models but the main parties need to find sime affordable answers
I've never understood why we only get to vote on local representatives. An election to each department of state would provide a better reflection of voters views in each area of government and stop this silly basket of policies nonsense. It would also prevent the big parties from refusing to talk about subjects that are important to the electorate.
If you look at Ormiston’s post above you'll see that being old and white means that you will eventually be disenfranchised and that is apparently something to be celebrated.
Nothing at all wrong with being either and I say that as a middle aged white man who is very comfortable with who I am.
I know you two are deliberately trying to miss the point and play the victim/race card but what the election shows is that the Republicans only had the majority with White and with older voters. They also did badly with women.
What the analysts are saying is that those groups in themselves won't be enough for them to win the next election.
So they need, if they want to win, to reach out to other groups such as young people (white and non-white), woman (many of whom were usually Republican but put off by the "legitimate rape" comments and anti-abortion, anti-contraception stance of some of the GOP).
So next time they can either listen to their lunatic fringe again (the tea party, etc) or they can seek a more moderate candidate with appeal to a broader range of voters.
There will be no Obama next time and if they put someone like Jeb Bush (high profile, well known family, ex-governor of Florida, a Latino wife) up against the democrat candidate they might have a chance.
But if Obama and the economy has a good four years the democrats are going to be very hard to beat regardless.
Nothing at all wrong with being either and I say that as a middle aged white man who is very comfortable with who I am.
I know you two are deliberately trying to miss the point and play the victim/race card but what the election shows is that the Republicans only had the majority with White and with older voters. They also did badly with women.
What the analysts are saying is that those groups in themselves won't be enough for them to win the next election.
So they need, if they want to win, to reach out to other groups such as young people (white and non-white), woman (many of whom were usually Republican but put off by the "legitimate rape" comments and anti-abortion, anti-contraception stance of some of the GOP).
So next time they can either listen to their lunatic fringe again (the tea party, etc) or they can seek a more moderate candidate with appeal to a broader range of voters.
There will be no Obama next time and if they put someone like Jeb Bush (high profile, well known family, ex-governor of Florida, a Latino wife) up against the democrat candidate they might have a chance.
But if Obama and the economy has a good four years the democrats are going to be very hard to beat regardless.
Your presumptions are wrong you 'know' nothing of the sort.
If you read the post to which I refer, it implies that immigration both legal and illegal is tipping the balance between non white and white middle aged voters, thus any policy directed against immigration will remove their political viability, a process that continues and grows in relevance. Quite how making that point equates to your emotive charge of victimisation I dont know, however I'm sure your reasons are opaque and egalitarian.
I have not nor has anyone else here supported Romney's stance on rape, contraception or homosexuality. Indeed the whole world could do with a large dose of female education and contraception to limit the most dangerous situation that faces the human race, over population.
Young voters naturally trend to the left because of their youthful inexperience and naivety something which some of us apparently never grow out of.
The downside risks to the American economy are huge and could very well spiral out of control, those risks are enlarged with Obama's selection as I have stated in some detail above.
I've never understood why we only get to vote on local representatives. An election to each department of state would provide a better reflection of voters views in each area of government and stop this silly basket of policies nonsense. It would also prevent the big parties from refusing to talk about subjects that are important to the electorate.
Me neither. Great idea.
Ugh. Worst idea I've ever heard. Everyone votes for the chancellor offering tax cuts and for the health and education secretaries offering big spending increases. Every department in permanent truf war with all the others. Every minsiter unsackable.
If you look at Ormiston’s post above you'll see that being old and white means that you will eventually be disenfranchised and that is apparently something to be celebrated.
Or rather a political party won't be able to win just by winning the old, white vote.
The Republicans will have to change and they probably will. The first thing they will drop is the anti-immigrant policy. They will triangulate by insisting on tough border controls while accepting that it is not feasible or appropriate to try and deport 11.5 million already there.
There's no good reason why the GOP can't get 40%+ of the hispanic vote. GWB managed it and they can do still.
If, like the Labour party in the 1980s, they insist on being ideolgically pure they will have to take the consequence - misery every four years.
Ugh. Worst idea I've ever heard. Everyone votes for the chancellor offering tax cuts and for the health and education secretaries offering big spending increases. Every department in permanent truf war with all the others. Every minsiter unsackable.
But it would be more fun:)) More fun voting for the chancellor offering tax cuts rather than the party offering tax cuts. More fun voting for health and education secretaries offering big spending increases rather than the party offering big spending increases. Every depatment in permanent turf war rather than every party in permanent turf war. Every minister sackable. In reality tho it can never be of course as maybe the elitist ,banksters, Big pharma, big corporations , war-mongerers,military industrial complexes etc might get a butt-kicking and I can't see that happening.:)) Let's vote in peace, so who do we vote for?
If you look at Ormiston’s post above you'll see that being old and white means that you will eventually be disenfranchised and that is apparently something to be celebrated.
There are so many problems with that post that its hard to know where to start.
Firstly, whites aren't being disenfranchised, its merely that their votes no longer carry the 90% of total voting power that they used to.
Secondly, who talked about celebrating anything? Oh, that's right, nobody.
I've never understood why we only get to vote on local representatives. An election to each department of state would provide a better reflection of voters views in each area of government and stop this silly basket of policies nonsense. It would also prevent the big parties from refusing to talk about subjects that are important to the electorate.
Me neither. Great idea.
Ugh. Worst idea I've ever heard. Everyone votes for the chancellor offering tax cuts and for the health and education secretaries offering big spending increases. Every department in permanent truf war with all the others. Every minsiter unsackable.
If you look at Ormiston’s post above you'll see that being old and white means that you will eventually be disenfranchised and that is apparently something to be celebrated.
Or rather a political party won't be able to win just by winning the old, white vote.
The Republicans will have to change and they probably will. The first thing they will drop is the anti-immigrant policy. They will triangulate by insisting on tough border controls while accepting that it is not feasible or appropriate to try and deport 11.5 million already there.
There's no good reason why the GOP can't get 40%+ of the hispanic vote. GWB managed it and they can do still.
If, like the Labour party in the 1980s, they insist on being ideolgically pure they will have to take the consequence - misery every four years.
Very, very hard to see how the Republicans re-capture the Hispanic vote and get their share back to 40% - nobody can serve two political masters at the same time.
The Hispanics want the Dream Act passed, they want the 13 million illegal immigrants to be allowed to stay in the country and have a pathway to US citizenship - this issue cannot be fudged any longer now that the Latinos have the voting power that they do.
The Tea Party - the ones running the GOP - utterly detest the idea of 'amnesty' for any illegal immigrants and are demanding that they all be deported - an idea which is batshit crazy but one they are vehemently sticking to.
Even retarded morons like Sean Hannity are moving towards amnesty for the illegals but the Tea Party base are not going to let this go without one hell of a fight.
Obama and the Democrats are about to wedge the Republicans in the new Congress by bringing the Dream Act to the HoR and Senate and are going to force the Republicans to vote it down.
What chance do the Republicans have with Hispanics once they have done that?
What you see in the election results -- as broken down by the numbers OA cites -- is probably ephemeral. Maybe the Republican Party remains intransigent and crazy -- not to appease tea partiers (red herring) but because entertainers in print, on the radio, internet, and television need speakers fees. But if they don's stay crazy, demographic groups aren't firmly planted with Democrats.
You can break down the exit poll data by state here.
The results for Asian-Americans is supported by other polls and overall trends, but note that the polling for this subgroup only encompasses three of the fifty states (California, Nevada, and Virginia). In total, the sample size that we're drawing conclusions from is 648 (for a population of 18 million) -- with ~ 216 of that 648 coming from Nevada where the split was 50% for Obama and 46% for Romney.
If the Party can cut out its new reinvigorated race-baiting and embrace a party that features two Asian American governors (Bobby Jindal and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley) and a Hispanic-American governor (Susana Martinez), that chasm can probably be bridged quickly.
so what your saying is the Republicans should be more racist ! a bit like Obama and TARGET racial voting using racial profiling
Give an example of Obama doing so.
How about Obombas "African Americans for Obama " election campaign. Imagine if Romney did a "Whites for Romney" campaign. He would be vilified as a racist. But hey Obama can do it!! What about the Trayvon Martin killing? There is always some group that will incite racial division and tension over this but the President!!!? Proclaiming him to be the son he never had is exploitation at its worst, creating racial division and tension at its worst. It was shameful. You would expect the world leader to inject calm into society but instead he shamefully exploited it. Just a couple of examples there but hey the GOP are as bad at governing. They all are.:))
How about Obombas "African Americans for Obama " election campaign. Imagine if Romney did a "Whites for Romney" campaign. He would be vilified as a racist. But hey Obama can do it!! What about the Trayvon Martin killing? There is always some group that will incite racial division and tension over this but the President!!!? Proclaiming him to be the son he never had is exploitation at its worst, creating racial division and tension at its worst. It was shameful. You would expect the world leader to inject calm into society but instead he shamefully exploited it. Just a couple of examples there but hey the GOP are as bad at governing. They all are.:))
You mean like the Republican National Hispanic Assembly or the National Black Repuplican Association?
I don't have any particular love for Obama or the Democrats (although I think you liberterians (apologies if I've peged you wrong but that's the impression I have) are nuttier than squirrel shit) but I honestly don't think he aims at creating racial divisions. There is a series divide in America on racial, gender and other lines but I don't expect either party to seek to solve it.
How about Obombas "African Americans for Obama " election campaign. Imagine if Romney did a "Whites for Romney" campaign. He would be vilified as a racist. But hey Obama can do it!! What about the Trayvon Martin killing? There is always some group that will incite racial division and tension over this but the President!!!? Proclaiming him to be the son he never had is exploitation at its worst, creating racial division and tension at its worst. It was shameful. You would expect the world leader to inject calm into society but instead he shamefully exploited it. Just a couple of examples there but hey the GOP are as bad at governing. They all are.:))
You mean like the Republican National Hispanic Assembly or the National Black Repuplican Association?
I don't have any particular love for Obama or the Democrats (although I think you liberterians (apologies if I've peged you wrong but that's the impression I have) are nuttier than squirrel shit) but I honestly don't think he aims at creating racial divisions. There is a series divide in America on racial, gender and other lines but I don't expect either party to seek to solve it.
You have fallen into the conditioned trap of assuming that as I may condemn one that perhaps I support the other. They are all the same , all racist and exploiters but you did ask for an example and when it didn't sit happy with your views then you attack the oppostion party. Thats natural, everyone does it, . No party seeks to solve any problem ,just exploit it and gain from it. Pretending otherwise is daft. Both the major parties are after the constitutional rights of Americans. Why is this I wonder? Any views?
You specifically said "Imagine if Romney did a "Whites for Romney" campaign". I was pointing out that the GOP had precisely the same minority group assemblies as the Dems. It's pretty obvious that you hate both parties - unlike you I can read your posts.
so what your saying is the Republicans should be more racist ! a bit like Obama and TARGET racial voting using racial profiling
Give an example of Obama doing so.
How about Obombas "African Americans for Obama " election campaign. Imagine if Romney did a "Whites for Romney" campaign. He would be vilified as a racist. But hey Obama can do it!! What about the Trayvon Martin killing? There is always some group that will incite racial division and tension over this but the President!!!? Proclaiming him to be the son he never had is exploitation at its worst, creating racial division and tension at its worst. It was shameful. You would expect the world leader to inject calm into society but instead he shamefully exploited it. Just a couple of examples there but hey the GOP are as bad at governing. They all are.:))
Every Presidential campaign outreaches to minority groups in American elections, its the way that the system works over there. For what its worth Romney had his own groups targeting black, Latino and Asian voters, so did Bush II and McCain and every Presidential candidate since the 1990's.
Besides, for every black voter that voted for Obama on racial grounds, there are obviously many of these, then there are lots and lots of white voters (probably between 5-6% according to pre-election studies) who did NOT vote for him on racial grounds alone.
Best example of this would be West Virgina, a place with rich Democratic traditions but where racial tensions still linger and Obama has twice been thumped in Presidential elections and once in a Primary, polls show that Hillary Clinton (who won the 2008 Primary there) would have won both Presidential elections comfortably.
As for Trayvon Martin, you are way, way off base with you comments on this case.
Firstly, the quote you attribute to Obama is spectacularly wrong, Obama absolutely DID NOT say Martin was the son he never had, that is completely wrong.
Here is what he did say, ""If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon, I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened."
How exactly is that "exploitation at its worst, creating racial division and tension at its worst"? What is he supposed to do? Stick his head up his arse and pretend that nothing happened? Yes, that's showing real leadership.
You want to talk about people whipping up racial tension? How about Romney's campaign co-chair John Sununu telling people he wished that Obama "would learn how to be an American" and later in the campaign saying on live TV that Colin Powell had supported Obama because he was black.
Yes, that's right, this arse clown actually claimed that Retd. General Powell, a moderate Republican and one of the most respected people in American public life, actually makes his political choices based on skin colour. Jesus wept.
As Powell's former deputy, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - another moderate Republican who served in the Bush I administration, later said.....
"'Let me just be candid: My Party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White house has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable."
so what your saying is the Republicans should be more racist ! a bit like Obama and TARGET racial voting using racial profiling
Give an example of Obama doing so.
How about Obombas "African Americans for Obama " election campaign. Imagine if Romney did a "Whites for Romney" campaign. He would be vilified as a racist. But hey Obama can do it!! What about the Trayvon Martin killing? There is always some group that will incite racial division and tension over this but the President!!!? Proclaiming him to be the son he never had is exploitation at its worst, creating racial division and tension at its worst. It was shameful. You would expect the world leader to inject calm into society but instead he shamefully exploited it. Just a couple of examples there but hey the GOP are as bad at governing. They all are.:))
"exploitation at its worst, creating racial division and tension at it is worst. It was shameful..."
Ludicrous, entirely unsupportable hyperbole.
As OA walks through extensively above, there are serious issues regarding dealing with race in America that my political party has to address or its opportunity to govern will be limited. People within the party and people who promote themselves as spokespersons of conservatives concocted, from whole cloth, controversy regarding the President's statement regarding the death of Trayvon Martin, just as they've whipped up false outrage about inviting Common to the White House or the terrible menace of the New Black Panther Party. These rhetorical flourishes and outright falsehoods get viewers, sell books, and elicit honorariums, but they offend significant portions of the electorate.
Perhaps more importantly, they have eviscerated the achievements of the party to practice what it preaches -- establish and promote a meritocratic system by which there are no limits to achievement because of identity. Ethnic minorities have reached high-level positions within the Republican party based on their merits; whatever may be said of Colin Powell he has been and remains a member of the Republican party. When he accepted the appointment as Secretary of State under Bush II, his first press conference waxed extensively and eloquently on what that appointment meant for African-Americans.
My point above is that demographics is not necessarily destiny in American politics. The Republican party can recover voter approval amongst minority groups in the near term, but it cannot do so if charlatans are allowed to spew garbage without being challenged and called to account.
I imagine BaronPaolo prides himself on being an independent thinker and too savvy to be bamboozled by corrupt politicians -- that would seem to preclude repeating the syphilitic rantings of hucksters bent on sowing discord for dollars.
That's a superb post, I heard Joe Scarbrough talk about Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly et al as being essentially "niche marketers" and being extremely successful at it by getting the hardcore conservative base to watch Fox News, listen to Talk Radio, buy books/magazines etc - but in doing so they have driven their party into a ditch.
How can the party of someone like Nixon, the ultimate pragmatist-realist conservative, now be in the business of denying climate change and insisting you can actually physically deport 13 million illegals? How does this even happen?
The Republicans needs to find their Bill Clinton, and fast.
Comments
There are, of course many more parties besides Democrats and Republicans, but they are not viable. The Green Party is to the left of Democrats, the Libertarians are generally to the right of Republicans.
We did have Independent Senators elected in Vermont and Maine, but those are more down to the persons than parties. Same with Mayor Bloomberg in New York City, an Independent who has been both a Republican and a Democrat.
What is really needed is a third party between the Democrats and Republicans.
You have three viable parties in the UK. The Liberal Democrats are clearly third behind Labour and the Conservatives, but they are strong enough so that they can sway a national election where a coalition government needs to be formed.
In the US, there is no enough cooperation, with a lack of coalition being one of the primary reasons.
Obviously the UK has its own political difficulties.
But three spreads out the divisiveness and forces parties to work together when there is no majority.
Somehow the west need to find the fairest most afforable healthcare systems for the work force and old age and maybe the NHS is part of the answer.
When it comes to transport, finance, welfare and defence / foreign policy well thats a different ball game...many ideas and models but the main parties need to find sime affordable answers
I've never understood why we only get to vote on local representatives. An election to each department of state would provide a better reflection of voters views in each area of government and stop this silly basket of policies nonsense. It would also prevent the big parties from refusing to talk about subjects that are important to the electorate.
Me neither. Great idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-romney-is-president.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
Colostomy bags (my very unfavourite).
Retirement 'homes'.
Alwight!
sorry Jints as in sure your aware all thats way above me
I know you two are deliberately trying to miss the point and play the victim/race card but what the election shows is that the Republicans only had the majority with White and with older voters. They also did badly with women.
What the analysts are saying is that those groups in themselves won't be enough for them to win the next election.
So they need, if they want to win, to reach out to other groups such as young people (white and non-white), woman (many of whom were usually Republican but put off by the "legitimate rape" comments and anti-abortion, anti-contraception stance of some of the GOP).
So next time they can either listen to their lunatic fringe again (the tea party, etc) or they can seek a more moderate candidate with appeal to a broader range of voters.
There will be no Obama next time and if they put someone like Jeb Bush (high profile, well known family, ex-governor of Florida, a Latino wife) up against the democrat candidate they might have a chance.
But if Obama and the economy has a good four years the democrats are going to be very hard to beat regardless.
If you read the post to which I refer, it implies that immigration both legal and illegal is tipping the balance between non white and white middle aged voters, thus any policy directed against immigration will remove their political viability, a process that continues and grows in relevance. Quite how making that point equates to your emotive charge of victimisation I dont know, however I'm sure your reasons are opaque and egalitarian.
I have not nor has anyone else here supported Romney's stance on rape, contraception or homosexuality. Indeed the whole world could do with a large dose of female education and contraception to limit the most dangerous situation that faces the human race, over population.
Young voters naturally trend to the left because of their youthful inexperience and naivety something which some of us apparently never grow out of.
The downside risks to the American economy are huge and could very well spiral out of control, those risks are enlarged with Obama's selection as I have stated in some detail above.
Love and peace : - )
Or rather a political party won't be able to win just by winning the old, white vote.
The Republicans will have to change and they probably will. The first thing they will drop is the anti-immigrant policy. They will triangulate by insisting on tough border controls while accepting that it is not feasible or appropriate to try and deport 11.5 million already there.
There's no good reason why the GOP can't get 40%+ of the hispanic vote. GWB managed it and they can do still.
If, like the Labour party in the 1980s, they insist on being ideolgically pure they will have to take the consequence - misery every four years.
But it would be more fun:))
More fun voting for the chancellor offering tax cuts rather than the party offering tax cuts.
More fun voting for health and education secretaries offering big spending increases rather than the party offering big spending increases.
Every depatment in permanent turf war rather than every party in permanent turf war.
Every minister sackable.
In reality tho it can never be of course as maybe the elitist ,banksters, Big pharma, big corporations , war-mongerers,military industrial complexes etc might get a butt-kicking and I can't see that happening.:))
Let's vote in peace, so who do we vote for?
Firstly, whites aren't being disenfranchised, its merely that their votes no longer carry the 90% of total voting power that they used to.
Secondly, who talked about celebrating anything? Oh, that's right, nobody.
The Hispanics want the Dream Act passed, they want the 13 million illegal immigrants to be allowed to stay in the country and have a pathway to US citizenship - this issue cannot be fudged any longer now that the Latinos have the voting power that they do.
The Tea Party - the ones running the GOP - utterly detest the idea of 'amnesty' for any illegal immigrants and are demanding that they all be deported - an idea which is batshit crazy but one they are vehemently sticking to.
Even retarded morons like Sean Hannity are moving towards amnesty for the illegals but the Tea Party base are not going to let this go without one hell of a fight.
Obama and the Democrats are about to wedge the Republicans in the new Congress by bringing the Dream Act to the HoR and Senate and are going to force the Republicans to vote it down.
What chance do the Republicans have with Hispanics once they have done that?
You can break down the exit poll data by state here.
The results for Asian-Americans is supported by other polls and overall trends, but note that the polling for this subgroup only encompasses three of the fifty states (California, Nevada, and Virginia). In total, the sample size that we're drawing conclusions from is 648 (for a population of 18 million) -- with ~ 216 of that 648 coming from Nevada where the split was 50% for Obama and 46% for Romney.
If the Party can cut out its new reinvigorated race-baiting and embrace a party that features two Asian American governors (Bobby Jindal and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley) and a Hispanic-American governor (Susana Martinez), that chasm can probably be bridged quickly.
Just a couple of examples there but hey the GOP are as bad at governing. They all are.:))
I don't have any particular love for Obama or the Democrats (although I think you liberterians (apologies if I've peged you wrong but that's the impression I have) are nuttier than squirrel shit) but I honestly don't think he aims at creating racial divisions. There is a series divide in America on racial, gender and other lines but I don't expect either party to seek to solve it.
Besides, for every black voter that voted for Obama on racial grounds, there are obviously many of these, then there are lots and lots of white voters (probably between 5-6% according to pre-election studies) who did NOT vote for him on racial grounds alone.
Best example of this would be West Virgina, a place with rich Democratic traditions but where racial tensions still linger and Obama has twice been thumped in Presidential elections and once in a Primary, polls show that Hillary Clinton (who won the 2008 Primary there) would have won both Presidential elections comfortably.
As for Trayvon Martin, you are way, way off base with you comments on this case.
Firstly, the quote you attribute to Obama is spectacularly wrong, Obama absolutely DID NOT say Martin was the son he never had, that is completely wrong.
Here is what he did say, ""If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon, I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened."
How exactly is that "exploitation at its worst, creating racial division and tension at its worst"? What is he supposed to do? Stick his head up his arse and pretend that nothing happened? Yes, that's showing real leadership.
You want to talk about people whipping up racial tension? How about Romney's campaign co-chair John Sununu telling people he wished that Obama "would learn how to be an American" and later in the campaign saying on live TV that Colin Powell had supported Obama because he was black.
Yes, that's right, this arse clown actually claimed that Retd. General Powell, a moderate Republican and one of the most respected people in American public life, actually makes his political choices based on skin colour. Jesus wept.
As Powell's former deputy, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - another moderate Republican who served in the Bush I administration, later said.....
"'Let me just be candid: My Party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White house has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable."
Ludicrous, entirely unsupportable hyperbole.
As OA walks through extensively above, there are serious issues regarding dealing with race in America that my political party has to address or its opportunity to govern will be limited. People within the party and people who promote themselves as spokespersons of conservatives concocted, from whole cloth, controversy regarding the President's statement regarding the death of Trayvon Martin, just as they've whipped up false outrage about inviting Common to the White House or the terrible menace of the New Black Panther Party. These rhetorical flourishes and outright falsehoods get viewers, sell books, and elicit honorariums, but they offend significant portions of the electorate.
Perhaps more importantly, they have eviscerated the achievements of the party to practice what it preaches -- establish and promote a meritocratic system by which there are no limits to achievement because of identity. Ethnic minorities have reached high-level positions within the Republican party based on their merits; whatever may be said of Colin Powell he has been and remains a member of the Republican party. When he accepted the appointment as Secretary of State under Bush II, his first press conference waxed extensively and eloquently on what that appointment meant for African-Americans.
My point above is that demographics is not necessarily destiny in American politics. The Republican party can recover voter approval amongst minority groups in the near term, but it cannot do so if charlatans are allowed to spew garbage without being challenged and called to account.
I imagine BaronPaolo prides himself on being an independent thinker and too savvy to be bamboozled by corrupt politicians -- that would seem to preclude repeating the syphilitic rantings of hucksters bent on sowing discord for dollars.
That's a superb post, I heard Joe Scarbrough talk about Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly et al as being essentially "niche marketers" and being extremely successful at it by getting the hardcore conservative base to watch Fox News, listen to Talk Radio, buy books/magazines etc - but in doing so they have driven their party into a ditch.
How can the party of someone like Nixon, the ultimate pragmatist-realist conservative, now be in the business of denying climate change and insisting you can actually physically deport 13 million illegals? How does this even happen?
The Republicans needs to find their Bill Clinton, and fast.