Sweeping Hamas Victory in Palestinian Election

[CamEdwards]

you know, reading this discussion you can't help but marvel at the fact that we were able to come back as one nation after the civil war. I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

you know, reading this discussion you can't help but marvel at the fact that we were able to come back as one nation after the civil war. I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.

Esp. when you think that the media in those days were far more partisan, more shrill and more extremist.

That's why I talk about perspective when thinking about current lat 5-10-25 years) in context of our nation's history. This whole partisan crap and red/blue state myth that goes on today are nothing compared to many periods in our history when such divisions, not only resulted in a civil war, but could have serious undermined the power of the Constitution. Can you imagine if we had a Hamilton today? Or an Andrew Jackson? Or that we have in Congress, a Webster, or a Calhoun or a Thaddeus Stevens? Today's media would go ballistic but a majority of citizens (just like back then) wouldn't buy into it, though.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Okay, so what you're saying is advocating the destruction of a race of people is "not all that different" from saying they have a right to exist, but that Jordan (which has agreements in place with Israel) should take over the West Bank. Huh?

1) The Arabs' goal is the political destruction of the nation of Israel, not the elimination of the Jewish race. If the Jews relocated somewhere else, the Arabs would not care one way or the other what happened to them. You do know that there are Jews living right now in Muslim nations, including Iran, right?

2) Sharon's position (and this was something like 20-25 years ago) was NOT that Jordan would take over the West Bank, but that Israel should drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank into Jordan, so that Israel could take the West Bank for itself. And yes, I do regard that as a position very much comparable to Hamas' goal of destroying the Israeli state. The whole Likud policy of settling the West Bank (of which Sharon was one of the chief architects) was designed to impose permanent Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.

I still wonder how much we ever did.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by clintl

1) The Arabs' goal is the political destruction of the nation of Israel, not the elimination of the Jewish race. If the Jews relocated somewhere else, the Arabs would not care one way or the other what happened to them. You do know that there are Jews living right now in Muslim nations, including Iran, right?

2) Sharon's position (and this was something like 20-25 years ago) was NOT that Jordan would take over the West Bank, but that Israel should drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank into Jordan, so that Israel could take the West Bank for itself. And yes, I do regard that as a position very much comparable to Hamas' goal of destroying the Israeli state. The whole Likud policy of settling the West Bank (of which Sharon was one of the chief architects) was designed to impose permanent Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.

The few Jews who still live in Iran are subject to extensive state-mandated discrimination and are not even allowed to leave the country. Their schools have been shut down and they are under constant threat. It's not a great life.

There have been many proposals over the years, including expansion of Israel to all of the original British Mandate. Obviously, that's not feasible. No one today is advocating this plan. Different plans come out of deperation for peace - the Arabs have started so many wars over the last 60 years.

Again, I ask you to read the Hamas charter, and look at what these people want to do to the Jews. I cannot understand how a reasonable person would equate these different plans with an unchanging policy of wanting to kill every man, woman and child in Israel. Make no mistake about it, that's what Hamas and the other terrorist groups want. That's why they continue to fire rockets into Israel even during what's supposed to be a cease fire.

Just read the charter. And then, please, defend it here. I'm fascinated by those of you on this forum who seem to think Hamas is just misunderstood or is justified in its behavior.

Does anyone here actually believe the problem with violence in the Middle East wouldn't end in a second if these Arab nations just agreed that Israel had a right to exist and stopped attacking civilians?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

This whole partisan crap and red/blue state myth that goes on today are nothing compared to many periods in our history when such divisions, not only resulted in a civil war, but could have serious undermined the power of the Constitution.

We really aren't all that different from 124 years ago.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My reading time has been a bit scarce lately, so could anybody supply some insight on exactly WTH this little blurb actually means? (I have a tough time envisioning a coalition of Palestinian Stephen Hawkings running a government)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060127/D8FDA2800.html

Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' top ideologues, said the group would consider forming a government of technocrats with no connection to Hamas. Such a government might relieve some of the international pressure on the group.

"We want a government for the Palestinian people, and if we couldn't do that then there are lots of options, one of which is a technocrat government," he said.

My interpretation is that they are going to get actual policy people in government positions instead of idealogues. If that is the case, that's a fantastic idea, because we've had first hand experience in the dangers of ideologues and cronyism.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's why they continue to fire rockets into Israel even during what's supposed to be a cease fire.

Um... that was Fatah. Hamas has kept to their cease fires (the latest being a UNILATERAL cease fire), which even Isreali officials acknowledge. It was mentioned in the link from the International Crisis Group (not exactly some pro terrorism group) by Mojo. You may have missed it.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... that was Fatah. Hamas has kept to their cease fires (the latest being a UNILATERAL cease fire), which even Isreali officials acknowledge. It was mentioned in the link from the International Crisis Group (not exactly some pro terrorism group) by Mojo. You may have missed it.

The problem is that firing occasional rockets into Israel apparently doesn't count as breaking the cease fire. No one disputes that the level of violence has decreased in the last year, especially the use of suicide bombers. But Hamas was shelling as Israel left Gaza and hasn't stopped. They were shelling Sderot and Ashkelon earlier this month.

Also, Hamas has pledged to resume its attacks in full. The pattern is definitely established. Build up weapons, then start attacks in earnest. When the response from Israel takes out enough weaponry, declare a ceasefire and build up again. Hamas admits that, and pledges to resume attacks just as soon as Israel moves out of the West Bank, and Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are in range.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

you know, reading this discussion you can't help but marvel at the fact that we were able to come back as one nation after the civil war. I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.

If it happened today, we would somewhat peacfully split into 2 nations.

[Buccaneer]

How do you split a nation into urban and rural?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How do you split a nation into urban and rural?

Thank you.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How do you split a nation into urban and rural?

Ask the Texas Republicans. I believe it's called gerrymandering.

Also, it would greatly hurt some of our poorest rural states. For example, Mississippi receives almost $2 from the government for every $1 of tax income it brings in. A split would work only as long as the two nations remained fairly equal.

[Buccaneer]

And that was my point, demographics and socio-economics play more of a role in such division as oppose to geography. One can argue, historically, that it have been that way in many civil wars (including ours) but I suppose there are those thinking we could "divide" this country into coastal states vs non-coastal states, or east vs west, or something equally ludicrous. Even if there were any credence to the red/blue myth, one has to account for the largest red cities (San Diego/So Orange Co) being in the largest blue state.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Ask the Texas Republicans. I believe it's called gerrymandering.

The Democrats had nothing to do with it?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Even if there were any credence to the red/blue myth, one has to account for the largest red cities (San Diego/So Orange Co) being in the largest blue state.

..and for that decidedly blue area right in the supposed heart of the Deep South: Atlanta. Of course, then there's that big ol' decidedly-blue that covers a decent bit of heavily-rural southwest Georgia. Try explaining THAT one in urban/rural or South/north terms.

[Buccaneer]

If I were to make a map using my geographical analysis skills, I would make the criteria for a red/blue county to have at a 2/3 (there's that number again) majority. A 52-48 or even a 60-40 split do not conclude it to be red or blue, imo.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

If I were to make a map using my geographical analysis skills, I would make the criteria for a red/blue county to have at a 2/3 (there's that number again) majority. A 52-48 or even a 60-40 split do not conclude it to be red or blue, imo.

I'll have to double-check, but I'm guessing that the counties I just mentioned would come close to 2/3 blue in 2004.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'll have to double-check, but I'm guessing that the counties I just mentioned would come close to 2/3 blue in 2004.

Have they explained that anamoly or is it easy to know why?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The Democrats had nothing to do with it?

In this latest round, the Democrats had no input whatsoever in regards to the gerrymandering . Remember, they were the ones that went to Oklahoma and New Mexico to deny quorum on the vote. And the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to see if the mid-census redistricting was constitutional or not.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Have they explained that anamoly or is it easy to know why?

Easy to know why. There are several counties in Georgia that are very rural, but are majority black. Your statement about urban vs. rural bought into the common myth that virtually all rural areas are hugely white. That's probably true outside of the South, but many black families have never left the area where they were slaves 150 years ago. I played ball for a private high school in Georgia's smallest classification. All but two of the teams in our region were from *really* rural areas. (The two that weren't were the two private schools in Columbus.) When I say really rural, I'm talking the only high school in an entire county having less than 300 kids. At any rate, the point of all of that is that most of those communities weren't exactly bastions of Republican support, shall we say.

Here's the most extreme case in Georgia.

President: Hancock County (GA)
Updated 11/3/04 5:01 AM ET 100% Precincts Reporting Incumbent* declared winner
Candidates	Votes	%
John F. Kerry (D)	2,412	77%
George W. Bush * (R)	708	23%
Michael Badnarik (Lib.)	10	0%

EDIT: but Kerry had several counties in Georgia that were in the 55-65% range for him. I would say that 2/3 is probably too high, considering no candidate has won that much of a majority. I'd say that anything above 55% is remarkable, considering that you have to go all the way back to Reagan to find a President who totaled more than around 53-54% of the popular vote.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

you know, reading this discussion you can't help but marvel at the fact that we were able to come back as one nation after the civil war. I wonder if the civil war happened today if we would be able to do so.

Heck, the South (or most of it anyway) ought to be grateful that it did end up the way it did.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

And in case anyone thought I was exaggerating when I said that I live in one of the most liberal places around:

President: DeKalb County (GA)
Updated 11/3/04 5:01 AM ET 100% Precincts Reporting Incumbent* declared winner
Candidates	Votes	%
John F. Kerry (D)	160,758	73%
George W. Bush * (R)	57,133	26%
http://<font face="arial,verdana"><f...</font></font> (Lib.)	1,550	1%

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

..and for that decidedly blue area right in the supposed heart of the Deep South: Atlanta. Of course, then there's that big ol' decidedly-blue that covers a decent bit of heavily-rural southwest Georgia. Try explaining THAT one in urban/rural or South/north terms.

I recently read a fairly well-researched article showing a very positive correlation between Bush support and population of feral hogs in a given area.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

In this latest round, the Democrats had no input whatsoever in regards to the gerrymandering . Remember, they were the ones that went to Oklahoma and New Mexico to deny quorum on the vote. And the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to see if the mid-census redistricting was constitutional or not.

Then perhaps the Democrats should do some gerrymandering on their own if nobody can oppose it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Then perhaps the Democrats should do some gerrymandering on their own if nobody can oppose it.

That's what Chicago's for.

[Buccaneer]

SkyDog, in looking at demographic maps, there are other rural black Southern counties that (outside of Georgia) did not go blue as much as SW GA. Maybe they did a better job of getting out the vote?

That's probably true outside of the South

Understatement of the year. In rural New England, Midwest and the Inter-Mountain West, you can count the total number of black folks on one hand plus a few toes.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My reading time has been a bit scarce lately, so could anybody supply some insight on exactly WTH this little blurb actually means? (I have a tough time envisioning a coalition of Palestinian Stephen Hawkings running a government)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060127/D8FDA2800.html

Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' top ideologues, said the group would consider forming a government of technocrats with no connection to Hamas. Such a government might relieve some of the international pressure on the group.

"We want a government for the Palestinian people, and if we couldn't do that then there are lots of options, one of which is a technocrat government," he said.

Technocrat is another term for a policy-wonk employed in government service. Basically a bunch of people who went to Harvard or Georgetown etc and got their Masters or PhD's in Public Policy or a related social-scientific field...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

SkyDog, in looking at demographic maps, there are other rural black Southern counties that (outside of Georgia) did not go blue as much as SW GA. Maybe they did a better job of getting out the vote?

Two words: Sanford Bishop.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Then perhaps the Democrats should do some gerrymandering on their own if nobody can oppose it.

What does that have to do with the example that Jim brought up on the latest gerrymandering in Texas? You asked a question directly about that example, and I gave some info back on it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

What does that have to do with the example that Jim brought up on the latest gerrymandering in Texas?

The example Jim sited was related to a much larger question asked previously by Buccaneer. His example showed a method of how the nation is split between urban and rural districts. There are cases where democrats redistrict to secure they win the proper elections as well. I don't agree with it, but it looks like the Republicans do not have a copyright on the issue. But regardless, if they can get away with it, I suspect any politician would do it.

You asked a question directly about that example, and I gave some info back on it.

I didn't disagree with your answer. I was just taking that information to further my understanding of the rural/urban issue.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Actually, in Ohio at least, the Ohio DNC backed a proposal on the ballot that would've left redistricting to a bipartisan panel of judges. It was defeated by the usual smear machine that 'activist judges' would somehow gerrymander districts against Jesus or something. Don't ask me to explain it, after all, it is Ohio.

As a side note pointing to Skydog's neighborhood, it's a perfect example of how minorities have been packed into minority-majority districts.

Sadly, we let the South become
resegregated -- in the drawing
of Congressional districts.

Republican legislators were glad
to help create minority districts --
thereby putting most black voters
into ghetto districts. And of course,
that put most the loyal Democrats
into the ghettos, leaving the other
seats ripe for Republican taking.

See how that can play out. Make
one district in a state 80% black --
you create a 'safe' minority seat.
If instead two districts were each
'only' 40% black, they would not
be 'safe' minority seats. But when
Democrats -- black or white -- ran
in those two 40% black districts,
they would need ONLY one fourth
of the white vote to win. Let the other
three fourths of the whites vote for
the Rethugs, Strom Trent Bush, Jr.,
and Jeb Allen Gingrich. The Dems
would win BOTH seats.

Simple math:
40% of voters are black,
90% go Democratic
= 36% of total vote,
plus
60% of voters are white,
25% go Democratic
= 15% of total vote,
combined black and white
Democratic vote 36+15 =
51%.
Sweet victory.

Put it another way.
The Republicans put as many
black voters in as few districts as
they can. Then black Democrats
are elected from these handful
of ghetto districts, of course.
So far, it sounds good.

But in the many remaining districts,
the most reliable Democratic voters
( the blacks ) have been drained off
to create the new, few ghetto districts.

Thus the remaining districts become
overwhelmingly Dixie white, and alas,
overwhelmingly Republican.

In the end, the racial redistricting
actually REDUCES the opportunities
for blacks to get elected and gain
real political power. After all, they
have been segregated into the ghetto
again. And no Democrat, neither black
nor white, can win in districts that are
90% Dixie white.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

As a side note pointing to Skydog's neighborhood, it's a perfect example of how minorities have been packed into minority-majority districts.

As usual, you couldn't be more wrong.

1. I live in a majority-white neighborhood.
2. The county in which I live was majority-white as recently as 5 or 6 years ago, last I checked, it was only around 54% black.
3. A *large* amount of the black population of DeKalb County is middle class or better. I heard a stat recently that Stephenson High School, which is basically the "flagship" school of the southern part of the county right how, boasts the highest per-capita income of any majority-black school in the country. Also last I checked, DeKalb overall was the second-wealthiest majority-black county in the nation.

"Ghetto district," my black butt.

[Wolfpack]

Republican legislators were glad
to help create minority districts --

Sure, the Republicans took advantage of that fact, but let's not forget that the Democrats have also done it to heavy degrees as well. Districts in North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas were drawn up by majority-Democrat legislatures that featured some outrageous borders in the 1990s to satisfy the requirements of the Civil Rights Act. I know the I-85 district in North Carolina was challenged and struck down due to its absurdity and they had to re-draw that one a couple of times at least.

So, you paint with too narrow a brush, if anything.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I meant the Congressional district you're in, not the specific town or city. I mean, you're Congresswoman is Cynthia McKinney if I'm not completely off. Not exactly a moderate by any means. Plus Atlanta's so spread out, it's sort of weird anyway.

Wolfpack, the Democrats made the orgiinal borders. Then in the 2000's the districts were further gerrymandered beyond the requirements of the Civil Rights Act to create more segregated districts.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Wolfpack, the Democrats made the orgiinal borders. Then in the 2000's the districts were further gerrymandered beyond the requirements of the Civil Rights Act to create more segregated districts.

So, just asking for an opinion (not looking to spring a trap on you or anything), would you prefer to return to the 1990-style boundaries (or as close as legally practical) given they were drawn by Democrats, or would a dropping of the legal requirement for minority-majority districts (or altering it and "loosening" it, if you will) be a better way to strengthen black representation in Congress?

Truthfully, I despise such gerrymandering, whatever the reason and sincerely prefer balanced districts drawn up by impartial committees. It means a fair argument of ideas and districts won't be dominated by extremists of either party. If the Ohio GOP (who generally have been louts from what I understand) stood in the way of that sort of reform, shame on them.

[Senator]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Then perhaps the Democrats should do some gerrymandering on their own if nobody can oppose it.

This I know very much about. Both sides have done it, and pre-1994 or so, the Democrats did it blatantly for 100 years. Check out Eddie Bernice Johnson and Martin Frost pre-redraw.

Not to say that the Republicans had any right to gerrymander, but any righteous indignation along party lines in this case is a weak argument at best.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That's just a flat out lie. It's GOP propoganda.

Apparently not...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

It looks like the other side was quite willing to play the WMD card if it was in their political interest.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

I meant the Congressional district you're in, not the specific town or city. I mean, you're Congresswoman is Cynthia McKinney if I'm not completely off. Not exactly a moderate by any means. Plus Atlanta's so spread out, it's sort of weird anyway.

No, you said that my "neighborhood" was a "perfect example," and now you're admitting that metro Atlanta's sort of weird. Actually, I'd contend that it is *very* unusual, particularly DeKalb County, and should pretty much never, ever be used to back up any sweeping generalizations of anything politically. The large and growing black middle-to-upper-middle class, the high gay-lesbian population, the high number of wealthy white liberals. It all makes for an unusual combination. By the figures you used in your post, it would be expected that DeKalb would go around 60% Kerry, but it obviously went much higher than that. The Cutest Little Communist In Congress got elected several times when her district was still majority white, too. Actually, given that part of Gwinnett is still in her district, it STILL might be slightly majority-white, but I'm not sure.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It looks like the other side was quite willing to play the WMD card if it was in their political interest.

It's not an "other side" issue by any means, though. It just seems that many have conveniently "forgotten" that the presence of WMD was a universally-accepted fact on both sides of the aisle (and in the global community as well) up until the time one side decided to do something about it. It then became a rallying cry for the other side. It also is interesting that it seems to have been "forgotten" that the burden of proof was on Saddam, according to the UN resolution passed. If he could not show proof that the WMD had been destroyed, then he was supposed to face the consequences. The same thing would have happened in reverse had a Democrat chosen to send troops in only to discover that Saddam had gotten rid of (or cleverly hidden) his WMD.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

No, you said that my "neighborhood" was a "perfect example," and now you're admitting that metro Atlanta's sort of weird. Actually, I'd contend that it is *very* unusual, particularly DeKalb County, and should pretty much never, ever be used to back up any sweeping generalizations of anything politically. The large and growing black middle-to-upper-middle class, the high gay-lesbian population, the high number of wealthy white liberals. It all makes for an unusual combination. By the figures you used in your post, it would be expected that DeKalb would go around 60% Kerry, but it obviously went much higher than that. The Cutest Little Communist In Congress got elected several times when her district was still majority white, too. Actually, given that part of Gwinnett is still in her district, it STILL might be slightly majority-white, but I'm not sure.

McKinney won DeKalb, 64/36, with 240,400 people voting, and lost Gwinnett, 62/38, with only 6,500 people voting. So the Gwinnett portion just isn't signficant.

There were 23,700 voters in other districts from DeKalb, and 193,000 voters in other districts from Gwinnett.

DeKalb county is 54% black and 36% white with a median household income of $49,100 and is probably the richest majority-black county in the country. Gwinnett county is 13% black and 73% white with a median household income of $60,500.

It's difficult to tell for sure, because there were so many unopposed races and these are by far the biggest and most diverse counties in the state. But I'd venture to say that McKinney did unusually poorly compared to other local Democrats. This is not a race where the Republican has much chance. At least not in today's political climate.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Dola:

And in case anyone thought I was exaggerating when I said that I live in one of the most liberal places around:

Hey Skydog, just for curiousity sake, what was my county's split (Fulton). It's an interesting county, with a lot of liberal minorities in the South of the county (similar to Dekalb around that area) and a lot of conservative white guys in the North of the county.

I used to live in Decatur and now I'm in Roswell and it's interesting to see the change in bumper stickers .

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

McKinney won DeKalb, 64/36, with 240,400 people voting, and lost Gwinnett, 62/38, with only 6,500 people voting. So the Gwinnett portion just isn't signficant.

Ah, then it is smaller than I thought.

But I'd venture to say that McKinney did unusually poorly compared to other local Democrats.

Yes. Keep in mind that middle-class blacks tend to be fairly socially conservative on many issues, and ol' Cynthia is probably one of the four or five most liberal members of Congress. I'd be quite curious to see her black/white voting numbers. My guess would be that she gets more white votes than most black liberal Democrats, due to the presence of many vote-against-any-Republican whites in this area, but that she also gets less black votes due to the black middle class beginning to get fed up with her. She likes to whine that she lost the primary in 2000 because of white Republicans voting in the Democratic primary (which is perfectly legal in Georgia), but the fact is that it wouldn't have worked had she had the kind of unshakable black support that most other black Democratic candidates have.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Hey Skydog, just for curiousity sake, what was my county's split (Fulton). It's an interesting county, with a lot of liberal minorities in the South of the county (similar to Dekalb around that area) and a lot of conservative white guys in the North of the county.

I used to live in Decatur and now I'm in Roswell and it's interesting to see the change in bumper stickers .

Are there ANY conservatives in Decatur???

I'll have to find that data again. Fulton was less of a victory for Kerry than I would have guessed. North Fulton is more populated than I realized, maybe?

What do you call a black man in Alpharetta???






















an Atlanta Falcon.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I used to live in Decatur and now I'm in Roswell and it's interesting to see the change in bumper stickers .

Here ya, ya sell-out!

Fulton Updated: 5:35 p.m. ET		Kerry	199,436	59%	100% of precincts reporting
		Bush (Incumbent)	134,372	40%
		Badnarik	2,216	1%

[ISiddiqui]

LOL @ the Alpharetta/Falcon joke.

59% ain't bad, there has been a lot of construction up in Roswell, Alpharetta, and Sandy Springs (which I believe was influential in having them get incorporated) and you know the type moving in.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Apparently not...



It looks like the other side was quite willing to play the WMD card if it was in their political interest.

I counted exactly zero of those quotes as coming from Europeans. Zero. Which means you were caught in a lie and are trying to weasel your way out of it by deflecting criticism onto the Democratic party. You know what? A lot of the Democratic party was played for a fool. They believed the info from the Bush administration, and they were fearful of a reprisal of the first Gulf War vote (that they turned out to be on the wrong side of both issues just shows how bad their political instincts are). France, Germany, and Russia did not. France, Germany, and Russia turned out to be right. You have to face that fact.

[Ben E Lou]

...And for those wondering, basically Tucker sits right on the imaginery dividing line between majority black and majority white neighborhoods in DeKalb County. As I mentioned, my neighborhood, which sits just north of the center of Tucker is majority white (probably 60-70%, and I'm less than a half a mile from THS and Main Street in Tucker), but head to the first neighborhoods south of the high school (just on the other side of Caliente, actually), and the neighborhoods change to 60-70% black. Go farther north, and they get much whiter (Well, after passing through a small, heavily Hispanic area), further south, they get much blacker.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

It's not an "other side" issue by any means, though. It just seems that many have conveniently "forgotten" that the presence of WMD was a universally-accepted fact on both sides of the aisle (and in the global community as well)

I posted something a couple of posts up that you must have missed, primary source material indicating what the French and Russians believed about our UN presentation, otherwise I know you wouldn't have written such an outlandish lie about it being a universally-accepted fact in the global community.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

there has been a lot of construction up in Roswell, Alpharetta, and Sandy Springs

I guess I should have known. We've been going to church at North Point, and that area seems to be growing.