Washington Post: Romney with a historic Reaganesque lead with white voters.

[J. J.]

14% unemployment amongst blacks under Obama, yet they continue worship at the alter of Obama.

When are blacks going to learn the Dems are only taking advantage of them, feeding them propaganda of how good they have it under the Dems, and the sad part is, they believe it.

Cuz Republicans did such a great job for the Black people in the past decades.

Such as? 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

14% unemployment amongst blacks under Obama, yet they continue worship at the alter of Obama.

When are blacks going to learn the Dems are only taking advantage of them, feeding them propaganda of how good they have it under the Dems, and the sad part is, they believe it.

Cuz Republicans did such a great job for the Black people in the past decades.

Such as? 

As your homework give me at least 5 examples for tomorrow.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Romney has surged to 60% among whites. Party like its 2010!

Or 1950 when you didn't have to worry about those pesky... people ruining things.

We only have to worry about one that is ruining the county.  

Seriously, you just posted about Obama trying increase black turnout.  Why is racist to complain about Romney's base turning out, and cheer Obama's base turning out, when they are both based on race?  

Firstly... ugh

And secondly... it's because it's someone who has made many, many, many racist comments... that's why. It's fricking obvious there's a racial gap (and not good for ANYONE)... but if you choose to be wilfully ignorant on the poster and the past comments, go nuts.

[J. J.]

Romney has surged to 60% among whites. Party like its 2010!

Or 1950 when you didn't have to worry about those pesky... people ruining things.

We only have to worry about one that is ruining the county.  

Seriously, you just posted about Obama trying increase black turnout.  Why is racist to complain about Romney's base turning out, and cheer Obama's base turning out, when they are both based on race?  

Firstly... ugh

And secondly... it's because it's someone who has made many, many, many racist comments... that's why. It's fricking obvious there's a racial gap (and not good for ANYONE)... but if you choose to be wilfully ignorant on the poster and the past comments, go nuts.

You mean like desegregation (which needed GOP support to pass in the Senate) or affirmative action  (first enacted by Nixon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Philadelphia_Plan )

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

a) I doubt you meant that for me...

b) this was before the GOP lurched into a psychiatric ward and had a brilliant record on Civil Rights.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Worst thread ever.

[J. J.]

a) I doubt you meant that for me...

b) this was before the GOP lurched into a psychiatric ward and had a brilliant record on Civil Rights.

Okay, what their recent terrible record?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

a) I doubt you meant that for me...

b) this was before the GOP lurched into a psychiatric ward and had a brilliant record on Civil Rights.

Okay, what their recent terrible record?

[J. J.]

a) I doubt you meant that for me...

b) this was before the GOP lurched into a psychiatric ward and had a brilliant record on Civil Rights.

Okay, what their recent terrible record?

Would you care to actually post something of substance? 

What is their recent "terrible" record? 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

a) I doubt you meant that for me...

b) this was before the GOP lurched into a psychiatric ward and had a brilliant record on Civil Rights.

Okay, what their recent terrible record?

Would you care to actually post something of substance? 

What is their recent "terrible" record? 

I laughed hard. Thanks for making my morning, J.J.

Ok, does the following terms ring a bell? Southern Strategy? "Benign neglect"? These are just few.

[J. J.]

I laughed hard. Thanks for making my morning, J.J.

Ok, does the following terms ring a bell? Southern Strategy? "Benign neglect"? These are just few.

The term "benign neglect," which wasn't a policy, dealt more so with urban affairs and was uttered by the Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, and Senator from the state of New York (Hillary held his seat).  He was in the Nixon White House at the time.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_neglect

You gave me the greatest laugh of the day by making Moynihan a Republican! 

The "Southern Strategy" is of similar vintage (1972, but you can argue it lasted until 1988), but it hasn't been successful since. 

So thank you for showing examples that Polnut considered too old. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ignoring the utter nonsense since the OP and stating the obvious:

1-If the country had the same demographics in 1988 that it did today and they voted the same way Dukakis would've won. Comparing it to Reagan is not only inaccurate but also apples to oranges.
2-These numbers, like all on white voting patterns, are heavily skewed by the south, not to mention Utah and the rest of the interior west.
3-Standard subsample MoE stuff.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ignoring the utter nonsense since the OP and stating the obvious:

1-If the country had the same demographics in 1988 that it did today and they voted the same way Dukakis would've won. Comparing it to Reagan is not only inaccurate but also apples to oranges.

Never really thought of this, but you're absolutely right. Such comparisions doesn't have any basis.

[heatmaster]

You are correct, but that underlines another truth, Romney has secured double digit leads among those critical Independent voters, and is polling especially strong amongst suburban voters, these two groups as I recall supported Obama four years ago, by double digit figures; also there are those Evangelical voters who gave McCain a pass four years ago and are flocking in droves to Romney; I believe the polling samples that indicates that Ohio is tied, is based on an outdated 2008 model, and when you see Republicans outnumber Democrats in absentee ballot applications, then there is a weird disconnect going on: if think most of the polling data has overlooked new voters and the early voters; Obama has cannibalized most of his vote, due to the early voting and is stuck at 49% - basically a flatlining scenario; it's those undecideds that he needs to be nervous about, and unless the 2012 election is the exception, 2004 was, undecideds break for the challenger; look out for movement over the next few days and by November 2 (a Friday), there should be a more clearer picture of how the race stands; but if you see movement toward Romney in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that's the suburban/independent vote, along with undecideds moving and if Obama is stuck at 46% in the nationals, then the Chicago folks are freaking out; there is another thing about my theory on the disconnect, the nationals (e.g. Gallup) show a 51% to 46% in favor of Romney, and Ohio on an knife edge -49%/49%, it doesn't make sense, which ties into what I said earlier in my piece about Obama cannibalizing his early voting; he might be so far leading, but imagine if you will there's no more voter's to be had: Ohio has pretty much followed the national trend line in every election since 1960, so there is something out of sync here or the national polls are out of whack, which I think is hardly the case, especially if the Battleground poll, which is pretty reliable has a poll coming out tomorrow, which reflects the Gallup poll data: now there is a body of opinion out there, who reckon that Romney could win the popular vote, and lose in the electoral college; it's doubtful, especially when you have a 5 point advantage for Romney, might be the case if there was only a 1% or less margin; so I reckon there will need to be an examination of the polling methodology after this election cycle. I'm looking at this through the prism of a political junkie and not a partisan; the polls are all over the place and you don't know who or what to believe; still Gallup has a history of accuracy.

[Hash]

You are correct, but that underlines another truth, Romney has secured double digit leads among those critical Independent voters, and is polling especially strong amongst suburban voters, these two groups as I recall supported Obama four years ago, by double digit figures; also there are those Evangelical voters who gave McCain a pass four years ago and are flocking in droves to Romney; I believe the polling samples that indicates that Ohio is tied, is based on an outdated 2008 model, and when you see Republicans outnumber Democrats in absentee ballot applications, then there is a weird disconnect going on: if think most of the polling data has overlooked new voters and the early voters; Obama has cannibalized most of his vote, due to the early voting and is stuck at 49% - basically a flatlining scenario; it's those undecideds that he needs to be nervous about, and unless the 2012 election is the exception, 2004 was, undecideds break for the challenger; look out for movement over the next few days and by November 2 (a Friday), there should be a more clearer picture of how the race stands; but if you see movement toward Romney in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that's the suburban/independent vote, along with undecideds moving and if Obama is stuck at 46% in the nationals, then the Chicago folks are freaking out; there is another thing about my theory on the disconnect, the nationals (e.g. Gallup) show a 51% to 46% in favor of Romney, and Ohio on an knife edge -49%/49%, it doesn't make sense, which ties into what I said earlier in my piece about Obama cannibalizing his early voting; he might be so far leading, but imagine if you will there's no more voter's to be had: Ohio has pretty much followed the national trend line in every election since 1960, so there is something out of sync here or the national polls are out of whack, which I think is hardly the case, especially if the Battleground poll, which is pretty reliable has a poll coming out tomorrow, which reflects the Gallup poll data: now there is a body of opinion out there, who reckon that Romney could win the popular vote, and lose in the electoral college; it's doubtful, especially when you have a 5 point advantage for Romney, might be the case if there was only a 1% or less margin; so I reckon there will need to be an examination of the polling methodology after this election cycle.

This was a 420 word sentence.

[Frodo]

Luckily the white majority in America is rapidly decreasing. Europe will soon be the only place in the world with large white majorities, and that's a socialist hell to white supremacist Republicans so they can't even flee there! Finally they'll feel the misery they've inflicted on others for generations.

Since we're on the discussion of race, what's your racial background -if you don't mind me asking?  

I'm half-Asian and half-White FTR.  

You are correct, but that underlines another truth, Romney has secured double digit leads among those critical Independent voters, and is polling especially strong amongst suburban voters, these two groups as I recall supported Obama four years ago, by double digit figures; also there are those Evangelical voters who gave McCain a pass four years ago and are flocking in droves to Romney; I believe the polling samples that indicates that Ohio is tied, is based on an outdated 2008 model, and when you see Republicans outnumber Democrats in absentee ballot applications, then there is a weird disconnect going on: if think most of the polling data has overlooked new voters and the early voters; Obama has cannibalized most of his vote, due to the early voting and is stuck at 49% - basically a flatlining scenario; it's those undecideds that he needs to be nervous about, and unless the 2012 election is the exception, 2004 was, undecideds break for the challenger; look out for movement over the next few days and by November 2 (a Friday), there should be a more clearer picture of how the race stands; but if you see movement toward Romney in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that's the suburban/independent vote, along with undecideds moving and if Obama is stuck at 46% in the nationals, then the Chicago folks are freaking out; there is another thing about my theory on the disconnect, the nationals (e.g. Gallup) show a 51% to 46% in favor of Romney, and Ohio on an knife edge -49%/49%, it doesn't make sense, which ties into what I said earlier in my piece about Obama cannibalizing his early voting; he might be so far leading, but imagine if you will there's no more voter's to be had: Ohio has pretty much followed the national trend line in every election since 1960, so there is something out of sync here or the national polls are out of whack, which I think is hardly the case, especially if the Battleground poll, which is pretty reliable has a poll coming out tomorrow, which reflects the Gallup poll data: now there is a body of opinion out there, who reckon that Romney could win the popular vote, and lose in the electoral college; it's doubtful, especially when you have a 5 point advantage for Romney, might be the case if there was only a 1% or less margin; so I reckon there will need to be an examination of the polling methodology after this election cycle. I'm looking at this through the prism of a political junkie and not a partisan; the polls are all over the place and you don't know who or what to believe; still Gallup has a history of accuracy.

I suggest you use paragraphs as there is no way I am going to read a wall of text.