Poll Shows Zero Percent of African-Americans Planning to Vote for Romney

Wow.  Seriously, Wow.

And of course the usual caveats – it’s just this poll, that doesn’t mean no African Amerians will vote for him, but wow.

“The numbers came from a statistically significant sample of more than 100 African-American voters out of 1,000 total voters in the poll,” NBC News senior political editor Mark Murray told Lean Forward. “Given the sample size of these African-American respondents, the margin of error is well within the 95 percent-5 percent split with which Obama won this group in 2008. ”

In other words, none of the roughly 110 black respondents to this poll said they would support Romney. The poll should not be taken to mean that Romney has no African American supporters at all.  However, at the very most, he has far fewer than Obama.

,

  1. #1 by brewski on August 23, 2012 - 11:33 am

    If there was a poll which showed that zero percent of white people were going to vote for Obama, you would be posting here that this is undeniable proof of racism. So how is this poll you cite not also undeniable proof of racism?

  2. #2 by Shane on August 23, 2012 - 1:15 pm

    It is absolutely proof of racism. The GOP have closed polling places where the majority of voters are blacks, gone to the NAACP to bash programs that help blacks, referred to racist congressmen as national treasures, robo called “ethnic sounding names” to tell them to remember to vote after the election was over… Hell that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    And shockingly, a man who is as white as you can be, who belongs to a church that until just a few years ago taught that skin color was a sign of sin, is not getting the black vote. It is clearly racism. As “these voters got sick of your racism, and aren’t voting for you.”

    But then we can hardly expect a man who thought the Fluke testimony was about condoms to be smart enough to notice that…

  3. #3 by brewski on August 23, 2012 - 1:23 pm

    There was no Fluke “testimony”. There was a Fluke staged press event in which she lied like Bill Clinton in front of a Grand Jury. Even you aren’t that stupid to not see that.

    Under Title X, Ms. Fluke could get all the free contraceptives she needed. Title X was enacted under Nixon.

    She lied and you fell for it.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on August 23, 2012 - 2:23 pm

    brewski–

    Even you can realize how dumb it was for the Republicans to stage a so-called “hearing” on female contraception and not invite any women to testify.

    Democrats on the panel were told they were allowed only one witness. They selected a young female Georgetown student, Sandra Fluke, who was going to discuss the repercussions of losing contraceptive coverage. But Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman, rejected her as “not qualified.”

  5. #5 by brewski on August 23, 2012 - 3:28 pm

    It was not a “hearing” on contraception. Nice lie. And the rest of your post is a lie too.

  6. #6 by brewski on August 23, 2012 - 4:55 pm

    The title of the Issa hearing was ““Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

    Notice that the word contraception is not in the hearing title. All of the people who spoke at the hearing were members of the clergy. They also submitted their names well in advance, rules that the Dems had agreed to. But for their own theatrics, they put forth Fluke’s name well after the deadline, the deadline the Dems had agreed to. But you don’t like getting facts in a way of a good talking point. Try again.

  7. #7 by cav on August 23, 2012 - 6:02 pm

    It was not a hearing. It was another attempt to stampede anyone susceptible to the kind of Bullshit Issa is so well known for.

    And on this side of the galaxy, does anyone else find it odd that Rmoney insists people should vote for him – despite his telling them they wouldn’t if he was honest about what he wanted to do.

  8. #8 by Shane on August 23, 2012 - 6:21 pm

    In other words, brewski still hasn’t listened to the testimony, but he can’t admit he is (as always) blow smoke out his ass, so quibbling over unimportant details is the fall back response. Just like he whines that “contraception was not in the title” as if that changes the fact that the religious males then proceeded to spend the majority of the not hearing bitching about contraception.

    Doesn’t change the point that this is a reaction to racism, built into the GOP, the party the racist lying sack of cowardly no name posting BS continues to back.

    Dissemble more brewski. It isn’t like we haven’t all seen it before….

  9. #9 by cav on August 23, 2012 - 6:34 pm

    On the campaign trail today, Mitt Romney refused to grant interviews to any reporters who wanted to know about his position on abortion, or about Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/23/737201/before-granting-interviews-romney-demands-reporters-agree-not-to-ask-about-abortion-or-todd-akin/

  10. #10 by brewski on August 23, 2012 - 6:34 pm

    How did you manage to get racism into this? Oh thats right, you fell into the modified Godwin rule that whoever says “racism” first loses.

    You lose.

  11. #11 by Shane on August 23, 2012 - 7:20 pm

    Clearly….

    See comment #1

  12. #12 by cav on August 23, 2012 - 7:42 pm

    Ha! Loser.

  13. #13 by brewski on August 23, 2012 - 8:47 pm

    The objective point stands.

  14. #14 by cav on August 23, 2012 - 9:28 pm

    The objective point being; that Issa’s ‘Lines Crossed’ discussion was meant to sabotage Obama (as if he isn’t busy sabotaging hizzown self) – was really all about ‘lady parts’. But there were only sluts to be found to represent the ‘ladies’ since Anne Rmoney was busy prepping Rafalka for the Olympics – so we were left with guys. And how it is the guys (especially the Popes little soldiers) that are supposed to have the upper hand in how those parts are to be used.

    Again, that point stands- like the little soldier in Todd Akins drawers.

  15. #15 by Shane on August 23, 2012 - 9:39 pm

    cav, that post may well deserve an award….

  16. #16 by brewski on August 24, 2012 - 2:46 am

    The objective point being if the statistics were flipped, that Glenden’s interpretation would have been entirely different. So mirrored results don’t warrant mirrored conclusions in Glenden’s world.

    Yes, you deserve an award for tangential irrelevance.

  17. #17 by cav on August 24, 2012 - 7:57 am

    That’s right, brewski gets framing rights. It’s only right what with his ‘objectivity’ and all.

    Tangential Irrelevance: Band name.

    Wishfully flipped conclusion (see if you have what it takes):

    Breaking news: Tampa police prepare for mass arrests during Republican convention.

  18. #18 by cav on August 24, 2012 - 8:13 am

    It is looking like Rmoney is pretty confident that only the right people are going to vote. All the polls are showing him well into the “steal it in Florida” range. After the election is stolen. it will be in the news for maybe 20 minutes, followed by “we need to move on for the sake of the country.”

    And the first act of the new congress will be to pass that stack of ALEC bills sitting on their desks.

  19. #19 by brewski on August 24, 2012 - 9:36 am

    Then all of a sudden the Dems will have a miraculous conversion and realize that the filibuster is the greatest invention in mankind.

  20. #20 by cav on August 24, 2012 - 9:57 am

    The middle finger can be shown both ways, it’s true.

  21. #21 by brewski on August 24, 2012 - 10:49 am

    Then the Dems will become the party of No.

  22. #22 by cav on August 24, 2012 - 11:18 am

    A no vote on republican policy = a yes vote for sanity.

  23. #23 by brewski on August 24, 2012 - 12:00 pm

    Does sanity mean not passing a budget for three years?

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on August 24, 2012 - 12:57 pm

    We already tested brew’s theory during the Bush administration. The fact is, nobody ever heard of the so-called “60 vote rule” until the Dems came back in 2007.

  25. #25 by Shane on August 24, 2012 - 1:45 pm

    Now Richard, play fair. Brewski has already proven he has no idea what science or history mean. Stop using that against him…

  26. #26 by Richard Warnick on August 24, 2012 - 2:49 pm

    Today’s best campaign quotes.

    Rmoney: “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.”

    Ryan: Rape is just another “method of conception.”

  27. #27 by brewski on August 24, 2012 - 3:23 pm

    Another history lesson for Shane, the ignoramus:
    The phrase “filibuster” has been around since 1854.
    The term was first used when opponents tried to delay the Kansas-Nebraska Act in the U.S. Congress.
    Kansas and Nebraska are states in the midwest of the United States.
    1854 was the year between 1853 and 1855.
    Congress is one of the three co-equal branches of government.

  28. #28 by Richard Warnick on August 24, 2012 - 3:36 pm

    Interesting historical fact (BTW brewski I have a B.A. in History). The original meaning of “filibuster” was a synonym for freebooter, which means “anyone who lives by plundering others, especially a pirate.”

    That description certainly fits today’s Republican Party.

  29. #29 by brewski on August 24, 2012 - 3:40 pm

    The Dems have had ample opportunity to change the rule, and they have not.

  30. #30 by cav on August 24, 2012 - 4:24 pm

    I fear if the Dems changed the rules at this point in time all our kids would soon turn into gaii walrus-fornicators.

    It may sound irrational to you, but that scenario is not without real, objective, possibilities – and I, for one, do not wish to find out.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: