Cameron Parish, LA is a disgusting place.

[cinyc]

cinyc,

Just pre-empting a tiff by pointing out that:

1. The Obama supporters arguing cogently here have basically stated that there wasn't sufficient issues difference 2000->2004, nor cultural difference, to account for a uniform swing in the opposite direction.

2. The swinging of those black counties had much more to do with higher black turnout because of an excited voting base than racism, which is the implication of #1

That puts the point of whether an affirmative racial vote is superior to a negative racial vote or not.

I think we've gotten into better nuance than that in this thread already though.

Fine.  I've deleted my original post.  I wouldn't want to add an argument that isn't nuanced.

[cinyc]

Now I want to know what it was.

Based on Alcon's reply I'll guess it was one of those "OH BUT BLACKS VOTED EVEN MORE STRONGLY FOR OBAMA!" red herring stupid posts.

Not quite.  It took issue with the unnecessarily incendiary subject of this post and asked whether the original poster would say the same thing about minority areas that swung to Obama but didn't swing to other Democrats.  And if not, why not.   

The fact is that no area is a "disgusting place" because of who they voted for or why.  There are many posts here by childish Democrats denigrating Republican areas as evil, but very few the other way.  Yet when someone tries to point this out, they get shouted down.

It also asked what David Duke did in the 1990s to deserve being kept off the Louisiana ballot.  As far as I remember, he wasn't a convicted felon at the time.  Disagreement with someone's repulsive political views should not be enough to keep somebody off of the ballot.  Why shouldn't the voters get to decide (as Louisianans did wisely)?

[cinyc]

I don't think anyone's arguing that "the voters shouldn't get to decide" either (), but just that the sudden realization of the awesomeness of the Republican Party between 2004 and 2008 seems less likely than racial/cultural/tribalist voting.  I think you have to intentionally strain to take it the way you're taking it.

Here:

If it wasn't for that owning on Meet the press Duke might have actually won the Governorship. I still can't believe this state even allowed this guy to run for Gov. 

It seems to me that Mike Keller was saying Louisiana voters should have never been able to vote for or against David Duke because the state shouldn't have let him run in the first place.  Why not?  And if the state barred David Duke from the ballot because some folks don't like him, what would have stopped them from barring anyone else from the ballot?

[cinyc]

I doubt he literally meant that, but I had him on ignore without noticing.  Either way, that's one person in a thread of people.  I had thought (can't remember now since your post is gone) that you used a plural?

No.  My original post was primarily directed at Mike Keller's comment.  The thread headline was a secondary issue in the post.  I doubt I used a plural when addressing Mike Keller's comment.