Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

At least in the immediate future. This occurred to me when I was having text exchanges with my wife today and she was asking me about who voted how in different groups during the 2012 Presidential election.

During the course of the exchange I mentioned that if 10% of Whites who voted for Obama had voted for Romney instead Romney would have won the popular vote. Romney won among Whites by 59 - 39%. If the same number of Whites had voted and Romney had won by 63 - 36% among them (I rounded 1/10th of 39 to 4), Romney would've won the popular vote. Or something like that. There's margin of error in polling and consideration of the electoral college but the point is that Romney could've won by being a little more persuasive with respect to Whites. There's also the matter of an actual decline in the absolute number of White voters in that election. Just turning Whites out is also a factor.

And, to me, focusing on the White vote right now is a more realistic approach for Republicans than trying to convince the voters among the other ethnicities to vote other than Democrat. Focus on turning out and increasing support among the ethnic group that already supports you and that still is and will for some time be the majority of the population rather than wasting your time trying to increase support among minority ethnic groups that always autonomically vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities.

Now, down the line you will have to change that approach as demographics change. But I really do think that in the here and now that would maximize the odds.

JohnStOnge wrote:At least in the immediate future. This occurred to me when I was having text exchanges with my wife today and she was asking me about who voted how in different groups during the 2012 Presidential election.

During the course of the exchange I mentioned that if 10% of Whites who voted for Obama had voted for Romney instead Romney would have won the popular vote. Romney won among Whites by 59 - 39%. If the same number of Whites had voted and Romney had won by 63 - 36% among them (I rounded 1/10th of 39 to 4), Romney would've won the popular vote. Or something like that. There's margin of error in polling and consideration of the electoral college but the point is that Romney could've won by being a little more persuasive with respect to Whites. There's also the matter of an actual decline in the absolute number of White voters in that election. Just turning Whites out is also a factor.

And, to me, focusing on the White vote right now is a more realistic approach for Republicans than trying to convince the voters among the other ethnicities to vote other than Democrat. Focus on turning out and increasing support among the ethnic group that already supports you and that still is and will for some time be the majority of the population rather than wasting your time trying to increase support among minority ethnic groups that always autonomically vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities.

Now, down the line you will have to change that approach as demographics change. But I really do think that in the here and now that would maximize the odds.

Hey Dipshit, that's exactly what the conks have been doing for eons.

D1B wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:At least in the immediate future. This occurred to me when I was having text exchanges with my wife today and she was asking me about who voted how in different groups during the 2012 Presidential election.

During the course of the exchange I mentioned that if 10% of Whites who voted for Obama had voted for Romney instead Romney would have won the popular vote. Romney won among Whites by 59 - 39%. If the same number of Whites had voted and Romney had won by 63 - 36% among them (I rounded 1/10th of 39 to 4), Romney would've won the popular vote. Or something like that. There's margin of error in polling and consideration of the electoral college but the point is that Romney could've won by being a little more persuasive with respect to Whites. There's also the matter of an actual decline in the absolute number of White voters in that election. Just turning Whites out is also a factor.

And, to me, focusing on the White vote right now is a more realistic approach for Republicans than trying to convince the voters among the other ethnicities to vote other than Democrat. Focus on turning out and increasing support among the ethnic group that already supports you and that still is and will for some time be the majority of the population rather than wasting your time trying to increase support among minority ethnic groups that always autonomically vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities.

Now, down the line you will have to change that approach as demographics change. But I really do think that in the here and now that would maximize the odds.

Hey Dipshit, that's exactly what the conks have been doing for eons.

I was thinking of a consice response. That will do it...

kalm wrote:

D1B wrote:
Hey Dipshit, that's exactly what the conks have been doing for eons.

I was thinking of a consice response. That will do it...

If only JSO could think of a concise post. I mean literally, just one...

JohnStOnge wrote:At least in the immediate future. This occurred to me when I was having text exchanges with my wife today and she was asking me about who voted how in different groups during the 2012 Presidential election.

During the course of the exchange I mentioned that if 10% of Whites who voted for Obama had voted for Romney instead Romney would have won the popular vote. Romney won among Whites by 59 - 39%. If the same number of Whites had voted and Romney had won by 63 - 36% among them (I rounded 1/10th of 39 to 4), Romney would've won the popular vote. Or something like that. There's margin of error in polling and consideration of the electoral college but the point is that Romney could've won by being a little more persuasive with respect to Whites. There's also the matter of an actual decline in the absolute number of White voters in that election. Just turning Whites out is also a factor.

And, to me, focusing on the White vote right now is a more realistic approach for Republicans than trying to convince the voters among the other ethnicities to vote other than Democrat. Focus on turning out and increasing support among the ethnic group that already supports you and that still is and will for some time be the majority of the population rather than wasting your time trying to increase support among minority ethnic groups that always autonomically vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities.

Now, down the line you will have to change that approach as demographics change. But I really do think that in the here and now that would maximize the odds.

Holy sh*t!

As a lib I sure do hope that you haven't shared this revolutionary bit of out-of-the-box thinking with the power structure of the GOP. This could be a game changer folks - try to imagine - the republican party as the party of the white establishment.......this is right up there with General Relativity....

Grizalltheway wrote:

kalm wrote:
I was thinking of a consice response. That will do it...

If only JSO could think of a concise post. I mean literally, just one...

We're all he's got, Grizz, nobody else will listen to the old gaffer - even his kid pretends to be deaf when he's around...

houndawg wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: If only JSO could think of a concise post. I mean literally, just one...

We're all he's got, Grizz, nobody else will listen to the old gaffer - even his kid pretends to be deaf when he's around...

Lmffao!!!!

houndawg wrote:
Holy sh*t!

As a lib I sure do hope that you haven't shared this revolutionary bit of out-of-the-box thinking with the power structure of the GOP

This ^ is hilarious...

JohnStOnge wrote:At least in the immediate future. This occurred to me when I was having text exchanges with my wife today and she was asking me about who voted how in different groups during the 2012 Presidential election.

During the course of the exchange I mentioned that if 10% of Whites who voted for Obama had voted for Romney instead Romney would have won the popular vote. Romney won among Whites by 59 - 39%. If the same number of Whites had voted and Romney had won by 63 - 36% among them (I rounded 1/10th of 39 to 4), Romney would've won the popular vote. Or something like that. There's margin of error in polling and consideration of the electoral college but the point is that Romney could've won by being a little more persuasive with respect to Whites. There's also the matter of an actual decline in the absolute number of White voters in that election. Just turning Whites out is also a factor.

And, to me, focusing on the White vote right now is a more realistic approach for Republicans than trying to convince the voters among the other ethnicities to vote other than Democrat. Focus on turning out and increasing support among the ethnic group that already supports you and that still is and will for some time be the majority of the population rather than wasting your time trying to increase support among minority ethnic groups that always autonomically vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities.

Now, down the line you will have to change that approach as demographics change. But I really do think that in the here and now that would maximize the odds.

congrats!

you trolled pretty much all of them

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:At least in the immediate future. This occurred to me when I was having text exchanges with my wife today and she was asking me about who voted how in different groups during the 2012 Presidential election.

During the course of the exchange I mentioned that if 10% of Whites who voted for Obama had voted for Romney instead Romney would have won the popular vote. Romney won among Whites by 59 - 39%. If the same number of Whites had voted and Romney had won by 63 - 36% among them (I rounded 1/10th of 39 to 4), Romney would've won the popular vote. Or something like that. There's margin of error in polling and consideration of the electoral college but the point is that Romney could've won by being a little more persuasive with respect to Whites. There's also the matter of an actual decline in the absolute number of White voters in that election. Just turning Whites out is also a factor.

And, to me, focusing on the White vote right now is a more realistic approach for Republicans than trying to convince the voters among the other ethnicities to vote other than Democrat. Focus on turning out and increasing support among the ethnic group that already supports you and that still is and will for some time be the majority of the population rather than wasting your time trying to increase support among minority ethnic groups that always autonomically vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities.

Now, down the line you will have to change that approach as demographics change. But I really do think that in the here and now that would maximize the odds.

congrats!

you trolled pretty much all of them

Claiming a trolling victory when there are no serious responses.

10 yard penalty and loss of down for Cidney.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
congrats!

you trolled pretty much all of them

Claiming a trolling victory when there are no serious responses.

10 yard penalty and loss of down for Cidney.

ah

there have to be "qualified" responses now i see

the immediate replies are a Who's Who of CS moonbats only - it beautifully executed

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:


Claiming a trolling victory when there are no serious responses.

10 yard penalty and loss of down for Cidney.

ah

there have to be "qualified" responses now i see

the immediate replies are a Who's Who of CS moonbats only - it beautifully executed

Going to the troll well too many times now. You used to be able to recognize quality trolling.

Oh how the mighty have fallen....

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
ah

there have to be "qualified" responses now i see

the immediate replies are a Who's Who of CS moonbats only - it beautifully executed

Going to the troll well too many times now. You used to be able to recognize quality trolling.

Oh how the mighty have fallen....

He's stuck out in Bumfvck Egypt - I'm not the only one who has noticed that he's a bit out of touch anymore

JohnStOnge wrote:At least in the immediate future. This occurred to me when I was having text exchanges with my wife today and she was asking me about who voted how in different groups during the 2012 Presidential election.

During the course of the exchange I mentioned that if 10% of Whites who voted for Obama had voted for Romney instead Romney would have won the popular vote. Romney won among Whites by 59 - 39%. If the same number of Whites had voted and Romney had won by 63 - 36% among them (I rounded 1/10th of 39 to 4), Romney would've won the popular vote. Or something like that. There's margin of error in polling and consideration of the electoral college but the point is that Romney could've won by being a little more persuasive with respect to Whites. There's also the matter of an actual decline in the absolute number of White voters in that election. Just turning Whites out is also a factor.

And, to me, focusing on the White vote right now is a more realistic approach for Republicans than trying to convince the voters among the other ethnicities to vote other than Democrat. Focus on turning out and increasing support among the ethnic group that already supports you and that still is and will for some time be the majority of the population rather than wasting your time trying to increase support among minority ethnic groups that always autonomically vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities.

Now, down the line you will have to change that approach as demographics change. But I really do think that in the here and now that would maximize the odds.

I can't imagine a text exchange, with you, on this topic.

Ibanez wrote:
I can't imagine a text exchange, with you, on this topic.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:


Claiming a trolling victory when there are no serious responses.

10 yard penalty and loss of down for Cidney.

ah

there have to be "qualified" responses now i see

the immediate replies are a Who's Who of CS moonbats only - it beautifully executed

No, but one needs a sense of humor in order to troll people.

That disqualifies JSO.

Ibanez wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:At least in the immediate future. This occurred to me when I was having text exchanges with my wife today and she was asking me about who voted how in different groups during the 2012 Presidential election.

During the course of the exchange I mentioned that if 10% of Whites who voted for Obama had voted for Romney instead Romney would have won the popular vote. Romney won among Whites by 59 - 39%. If the same number of Whites had voted and Romney had won by 63 - 36% among them (I rounded 1/10th of 39 to 4), Romney would've won the popular vote. Or something like that. There's margin of error in polling and consideration of the electoral college but the point is that Romney could've won by being a little more persuasive with respect to Whites. There's also the matter of an actual decline in the absolute number of White voters in that election. Just turning Whites out is also a factor.

And, to me, focusing on the White vote right now is a more realistic approach for Republicans than trying to convince the voters among the other ethnicities to vote other than Democrat. Focus on turning out and increasing support among the ethnic group that already supports you and that still is and will for some time be the majority of the population rather than wasting your time trying to increase support among minority ethnic groups that always autonomically vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities.

Now, down the line you will have to change that approach as demographics change. But I really do think that in the here and now that would maximize the odds.

I can't imagine a text exchange, with you, on this topic.

I bet she was wet when she got home.....

Let's be real, white people are the most fickle and heterogeneous racial voting group there is. No one candidate can win as high a percentage of whites as some can get Hispanics or blacks. It's just not going to happen. Hispanics would be close if it weren't for the immigration issue and blacks give absolute unconditional loyalty to Democrats.

It's much easier to get a klean and a poor urban black person on the same page than it is to get a Chizzang in the Pacific Northwest and some white, blue-collar joe six-pack in deep-red Kentucky on the same page.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
ah

there have to be "qualified" responses now i see

the immediate replies are a Who's Who of CS moonbats only - it beautifully executed

Going to the troll well too many times now. You used to be able to recognize quality trolling.

Oh how the mighty have fallen....

dont be butthurt about it klam

go back and look

JSO writes war and peace and you and D and GATW and dense and the rest line up behind him like a kids toy train

and JSO hasnt posted anything else

thats pretty good- intentional or not

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Going to the troll well too many times now. You used to be able to recognize quality trolling.

Oh how the mighty have fallen....

dont be butthurt about it klam

go back and look

JSO writes war and peace and you and D and GATW and dense and the rest line up behind him like a kids toy train

and JSO hasnt posted anything else

thats pretty good- intentional or not

Yeah...I'm sooooo butthurt by all this.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Going to the troll well too many times now. You used to be able to recognize quality trolling.

Oh how the mighty have fallen....

dont be butthurt about it klam

go back and look

JSO writes war and peace and you and D and GATW and dense and the rest line up behind him like a kids toy train

and JSO hasnt posted anything else

thats pretty good- intentional or not

Um... We read the thread - then laughed because it was hilarious
Nobody disagreed or was even surprised actually - but it was funny..?

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
dont be butthurt about it klam

go back and look

JSO writes war and peace and you and D and GATW and dense and the rest line up behind him like a kids toy train

and JSO hasnt posted anything else

thats pretty good- intentional or not

Um... We read the thread - then laughed because it was hilarious
I'm missing the JSO Brilliance Troll part..?

CID is patting himself on the back for the super duper double reverse back diversionary stealth troll he's now working.

CID is the new Baldy. Out-of-touch, clinging to the last pubic hair remaining of Conk relevance. As that party goes, so go Baldy and CID - down the toilet. Posters of hate - Party of hate.

kalm wrote:

D1B wrote:
Hey Dipshit, that's exactly what the conks have been doing for eons.

I was thinking of a consice response. That will do it...

No fucking kidding.