Edward Brooke, First Black Elected U.S. Senator, Dies

countryboy said:

Whatever, if it makes you feel better to pound your chest and claim false victory, knock yourself out. Champ.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

Don't apologise. You can start by telling everyone why Republicans wouldn't elect a black man after Barack Obama. What stops them? What association could they possibly make between Obama and another black man? That they wouldn't have made before? Did Obama make it impossible for another black guy to gather the votes from the right?



It's almost like you aren't reading my posts because you really don't know what you're talking about. It's not as easy as simply finding a black senator or a female senator. It also involves incumbents and general political pragmatism. Why would Democrats find a new black candidate to run against Boxer and Feinstein when they've proven they can win elections for 20+ years? Then there is Massachusetts, where blacks make up 6% of the population, and there has never been an elected black Senator or Representative. A state where John Kerry held his office for 20+ years, and then appointed a black man. A state where Kennedy held it for 40 years and ran mostly unopposed. New York hasn't had any black senators, true, and yet it has had dozens of black representatives. In contrast New Jersey with only 13% of blacks, a black man is currently senator. Again, it's far more complex than saying "find a black dude and get him elected". A party isn't going to leave a senator elected for 20+ years to go find a black man to elect. A party also isn't going to pour millions of dollars on a long shot when it could just back the incumbent. Doing so would actually be playing the token game.



Who said a candidate needed to be wealthy? I said it needed to have a ****load of money. That really is a fact. Hell, let's actually see how much of a fact that is using your example (Obama):

United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Then, in the actual race, Obama won against a carpetbagger - Alan Keyes, terrible fella - who was pretty much picked because Republicans had nobody to run against Obama. So, in short Obama's election as Senator can be mostly attributed to the terrible **** up that were the 2004 Illinois Republicans, him spending his way to winning the primary and the fact that he ran a campaign against a guy who was literally flown in last minute. The rest, as we know it, is history.



What a false dichotomy. Lol, Democrats have elected the overwhelming majority of the black politicians in Congress for the past 100 years. That you're trying to make it seem as if their lack of Senators make Democrats uninterested in black candidates is pretty laughable and ignorant of actual American politics. What is more telling is that you've avoided the fact that Republicans are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to finding electable minorities in general. Why is that?

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

1. I didn't say Republicans won't elect another black President because of Obama - I said Americans won't.

Click to expand...

It's the same principle behind why Jeb Bush may have trouble getting nominated and elected because of the perception that the last Bush wasn't a very good President.

Click to expand...

2. No, Obama didn't make it impossible for another black guy to be elected President. However, it is undeniable that Obama was elected President out of tokenism rather than merit. He was elected because the time was right for America to make a statement about race and electing the first black President gave many Americans a good feeling about themselves even though they hadn't the slightest clue about the man or his fitness for the office. As a result, the next black man to get elected President will be a superstar that cannot be denied. I don't see that person on the horizon which is why I said it may be 50 years before it happens again.

Click to expand...

3. New Jersey and Cory Booker are an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Why hasn't that translated in other jurisdictions. There are far more Hispanic Senators than blacks - why?

Click to expand...

4. It's not a false dichotomy at all - it's fact.

Click to expand...

And we were talking about the US Senate and only 9 black Senators since 1967 - not the House, not anything else. Why is it that only 9 black Senators have been elected when about 95% of all black voters support one party? I'd say that black Americans have been used and abused by the Democrats for decades and it's time they started demanding a little more respect, a little more representation, and a seat at the table not just a chair in the back corner.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

American's don't elect politicians. Parties do. Republicans vote for Republicans, Democrats vote for Democrats and Independents punch out the difference. So with that said, semantics.



It's not the same principle because at the very least family ties can be established. What would tie Obama to another black man from another party?



That's not what I asked. I asked what is stopping Republicans from coming up with their own candidate? They won the last election and cemented their majority. Why can't they come up with a competent black guy too?



Many factors: demographics, money, incumbents, etc. I keep telling you that there really is no magic formula for getting anyone elected, much less a black guy.



It's a false dichotomy because Democrats have gotten many black politicians elected. As a matter of fact, they've managed to elect more black politicians than Republicans. Pointing out that they lack in one area doesn't diminish the fact that of the two parties, they are clearly the most racially diverse. :shrug:



Lol, get over yourself. Black people vote based on what they feel is best for them. Not what you feel is best for them. The fact that you believe we're not "respecting" ourselves by voting for Democrats ignores the fact that Republicans policies simply don't appeal to the black community. As a matter of fact, Republicans seem to have issues with every visible minority. From Asians, to Hispanics to Jews, Republicans simply can't seem to get a majority from any of these groups. Why? Because Democrats have brainwashed everyone? Get serious, we're here to discuss politics. Not conspiracy theories.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Actually, you broadened the discussion, not me. I was talking about blacks in the Senate, as per the OP. It seems illogical to me that you'd focus on Republicans for not nominating and voting for black candidates in the Senate when you make it plain, at least from your perspective, that Republicans offer nothing that blacks want, at least blacks like you.

Click to expand...

So then, it seems logical to me that those who supposedly represent your views should be supporting you by nominating and electing black candidates to the Senate.

Click to expand...

Likewise, when blacks finally come around and understand that the Democrats offer them nothing and have been using them for decades and finally start to move support and influence to the Republican party, then you can expect blacks to be nominated and elected as Republicans and if you don't see that, then you'd have an argument.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

Lol, I didn't focus on anything. You brought up the Senate and I discussed it. That you continue to avoid the fact that Democrats have elected most black politicians (Senators included), so you can ask a version of "Why haven't they elected more?!" Shows you either don't actually understand the intricacies of the US' political system, or you're choosing to not understand them so you can play an absurd game of "gotcha". Anyway you want to play this game, the end result is the same. Democrats have picked many Representatives, a handful of Senators and Republicans with about a dozen black congressmen in a century. As the odds stand, blacks are more likely to put blacks in Congress by going Democrat than by going Republican. :shrug:



All debaters be advised, we have a non sequitur in progress. The poster is ignoring that a Democrat's race is not the only factor in voting. Candidates are chosen based on ability to win, money, local ties, etc. Democrats wouldn't be representing me simply by picking a black guy because he's black. :lol:



Lmao, blacks will be nominated by Republicans once blacks start voting for Republicans? Your statements are getting really weird. You're implying two things. The first is that white Republicans won't put up black candidates unless blacks vote for them. The second is that White Republicans are mostly incapable of putting up black candidates that their base will vote for. Your defense of Republicans on this issue seems extremely weird. Democrats have appealed to blacks, they've put black candidates and gotten black congressmen elected. Republicans have failed to appeal to blacks, and yet they can't get many blacks elected based on values alone.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

My apologies - I mixed up the Latino vote with the Black vote - blacks make up about 13% of the electorate. That doesn't change my point that there are several States that are overwhelmingly Democrat in voting terms such as California, New York, Massachusetts, with very rich local, state and national Democrat parties and they can't find any competent blacks to promote and elect to the Senate? Was Barack Obama wealthy with a ****load of money to make his run? So why aren't the Democrats, the party that claims to be the only party that supports black Americans, more inclined to elect black Americans to the US Senate? Is it because blacks aren't interested in the position or because Democrats aren't interest in them as candidates, just as voting fodder?

Click to expand...

Taylor said:

Congressional districts that are overwhelmingly Democrat (and white) don't elect black candidates, either. The vast majority of black democrats in congress were elected by blacks from majority black congressional districts.

Click to expand...