Mike wrote: I would say much of the hullabaloo is based on skin color. If 95% of a particular group vote for a candidate who happens to look like them, it's probably safe to say they voted for him for that reason.
I was surprised at the time by the scale of the landslide among black voters, but have now had chance to check out your hypothesis. It is clearly highly unsafe reasoning.
A black voter landslide for the Democrats is clearly routine and normal.
Given that 94% of black voters voted for Lyndon B Johnson in 1964 perhaps the impact was less than 1%? Likewise 90% of black voters voted for Gore over Bush, and 88% for Kerry over Bush.
If we were to take the last 2 elections as a guide it would seem that at most no more than 6% of black voters could have been swayed by the colour of the candidate in 2008. Personally I suspect the number was much less given the swing of the overall tide.
3. Abstentionist Evangelicals have in the past criticised the drinks industry for the lighly refined and nuanced different flavours they offer to entice customers. Whilst Addaction does not appear to be an evangelcial group, it would seem a little inconsistent if those self-same Christians were to then join with Addaction in opposing cheap and (presumably) nasty Tesco Value lager.
How much is the excise duty on the 23p can of lager? One report says "Lager is now so cheap that the stores pay more in excise duties than they charge at the till."
"However, British officials stressed they had not yet received "hard" evidence that the men were British nationals. "There is a hell of a lot going on at the minute and it is not just a matter of citizenship â€“ that's a bit of a red herring," said one source."
Interesting to note that according to "British officials" citizenship is a "red herring" these days and need not imply any responsibilities or allegiances.
DJC49 wrote: I'm not Mike, but [URL=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/05/politics/main4572555.shtml?source=mostpop_story]]]HERE[/URL] is the link you asked for. From the linked article "Why Obama Won" comes this: "It may not be surprising that African-Americans turned out in large numbers to help elect the first black president in U.S. history. (He received 95 percent of the black vote.)"
Thank you for the link. Even for all the hullabaloo I'm genuinely taken aback by such a reported landslide.
I wonder if, say, Condoleeza Rice would have secured a similar majority if she had run for the GOP against a caucasian Democrat such as Mrs Clinton? Presumably so .... if so called "race" was the deciding factor?
Are there any estimated statistics out there for how many black voters there were? or for how much estimated impact they had on the electoral college results?
I wonder if it was considered as decisive as the so called evangelical vote cultivation by Bush in 2000?
Hi Mike - thanks for the reminder. I agree with you it was no landslide but they rarely are of course. I had meant to ask you before about the alleged 95% landslide you referred to among certain constituencies:-
Mike wrote: If 95% of a particular group vote for a candidate who happens to look like them, it's probably safe to say they voted for him for that reason.
Can you provide a link to the evidence for this statement and clarify which group you are referring to please?
Boxcar - If you are saying that most Obama voters voted for him for a variety of other reasons aside from skin colour then I think we are in agreement.
Sympathiser - I would have thought that "New Labour" were more equivalent to George W Bush' administration than Democrat ..... although this may in part be due to Bush following Blair/Brown policies than the other way round. Time for change perhaps?
Neil wrote: "I have a dream that my ... children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - MLK Judging by the media fuss about this superficial subject, perhaps we still have a way to go, both on color & character.
I'd say that depends on whether Obama was judged by the electorate to be President *because* he was part-African or whether he was so judged for other reasons and his colour is simply being commented on as noteworthy in the light of history.
By comparison did Lewis Hamilton become F1 world champion this week *because* of his colour or because over the course of the season he was the best driver driving one of the best cars for one of the best teams?
San Jose John wrote: I couldn't agree with you more. Kids need lots of resources, which the more self-centered among us would much rather allocate to ourselves (bigger house, nicer car, boat, etc.). Birth control of all forms, combined with perceived environmental and overpopulation threats provides a convenient vehicle and excuse for such people to cloak their self-indulgence with "virtue".
To chime in on the "jettison the kids" mentality these days.
I took my family with me once when I went on a business trip to a conference held in a well known alpine / outdoor adventures resort location.
In vain did we find any family activities listed as suitable for our (then) toddler children. So we went to the helpdesk in the resort hotel and made the mistake of enquiring: "We're looking for something to do with our children?" .... they referred us to the childcare facilities.
"Do with our children" and "get rid of our children" were evidently synonymous terms there!
Incidentally, the town had virtually no pushchair access into it's shops and what few child play parks there were looked as though they were designed with only 14 year olds in mind.
Neil wrote: SJ John, your speculation is accurate in our case: no size fits all. Some children need much discipline, others little. Consistency & fairness (i.e., Biblical justice) is vital to discipline, of which corporal punishment is but a part. If the rod is wielded arbitrarily (based on emotion, not reason), one risks raising a tyrant. Parents should be like a miniature municipal court, following due process, & this is one way children learn what justice is. The rest of course comes from reading Scripture (and there's lots on this subject).
..... I fear such indulgence is commonplace these days, both in & out of the church.
Very perceptive comments Neil.
I believe the dots can be joined between rampant inconsistent and unjust - Christian parenting without due process from those who supposedly espouse discipline, and, -church leaderships and church members (inc pastor's minor children!) meetings without due process.
Perhaps it's time to reverse the test of 1 Tim 3:4? Why should we expect pastors to be de facto parenting gurus when, in great number today, they cannot lead a church?
It's time for the reformed church to cease and desist from the cult of the family. Let Christian parents take their authority back from usurper pastors!
Pikestaff wrote: The para quote; "Mark Thompson claimed that because Muslims are a religious minority in Britain and also often from ethnic minorities, their faith should be given different coverage to that of more established groups." Illustrates a bias towards a different treatment to the muslims.
"Different" does not mean "towards" but I note your very careful rephrase.
Sermonaudio treat Islam differently than they do Christianity. By SA's logic they also are therefore biased "towards" Islam?
Now, it may very well be your opinion, the Daily Mail's opinion and Steven Lee's opinion that the BBC is biased towards Islam. It may also very well be that the BBC actually is biased towards Islam. That is not the matter in dispute here. Let the actual evidence for that be examined without falsely putting words into the mouth of Mark Thompson.
It is simply NOT TRUE that Mark Thompson has said any such thing as:- "BBC boss: Yes we are biased towards Islam".
The Bible says: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"
In the light of the 9th commandment I again ask Sermonaudio where they have found express support for the statement that they have put into the mouth of Mark Thompson?