Whaaaaaat?

This is not a story!

Well if Chrissy would just let them know he doesn’t like the dumb old rules, they’ll prolly change them for him.

*puke, gak, hurl, shoots crap outta her butt and rolls her eyeballs all over the place while crawling outta her skin*

I just don’t think I can stand any f*kin’ more of the racebaiting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is a Democrat…right? Right. This is why the Democratic party can’t get anything done. Why the heck can’t they toe-the-line like Republicans? Geezus.

I didn’t see the entire segment, but as someone raised in the South — though in a state, either without run-offs or no major ones in my long memory — he’s giving the reason that is usually offered as to why they exist. In fact, I’m about 90% sure that they taught it in Poli Sci 101.

Stephen Shepherd says:
June 9, 2010 at 12:32 am
He is a Democrat…right? Right. This is why the Democratic party can’t get anything done. Why the heck can’t they toe-the-line like Republicans? Geezus.
——————————————–

Toe-the-line like Repubs to get things done? I hope you meant that as a joke. You truelly aren’t serious that to get things done you’ve got to say NO to every bill that comes up in Congress do you? That’s the Repub’s way?

Oh, and for the record… I’m a Democrat, who has been active at all levels of the party organization.

Of course, I doubt that any party official ever told me the reason, probably because we didn’t have them on a statewide basis my home state, but it has been offered as as explanation in previous analyses and like I said, I can pretty much recall an obviously Democratic-leaning, liberal-minded professor telling it to the class, back in the early 80s.

For anyone that even thinks Democrats are racist. Count the number of black Democrats in Congress and then count the number of black Repubs there are in Congress (WHOOPS, there are no black Repubs in Congress).

@the real john t: The southern wing of the Democratic Party has evolved over the past several decades, but there are rules leftover from the old days and in some parts of the South, there hasn’t been a motivation to change.

And quite likely, because neither of the Arkansas candidates were African-American, the subject will not even come up in that state this go-round.

Why are conservatives defending themselves. Where are the minorities conservatives? Matthews comments are blantantly racist.

Because Chris didn’t provide an explanation and I’ve been on a multiple comment tear…

In a three person race, liberals and African-Americans could quite possibly take a black candidate to 34% and if there are more candidates in the field, then it’d be much easier for an African-American to become the nominee.

The idea behind the run-offs is that if a black candidate were successful, the racists and the legitimate supporters of the other candidate could come together to push the non-African-American to above 50% and to help make that happen, historically the unsuccessful white guy would endorse the remaining white guy, citing his platform, but pretty much everyone knows the real reason why.

Personally, I’m opposed to the concept of run-offs and would love to see them eliminated, but they are more prevalent in the South and Chris is right as to why they exist.

Correction: I just learned that a run-off would be a possibility in my home state, I just don’t recall any off the top of my head and the politically correct, modern terminology is that it’s designed to prevent a “fringe candidate” from securing the nomination.

OK – I may be somewhat wrong, as is Chris and apparently if a Univ. of Georgia professor is to be believed, so would my old professor from back in the day.

According to Charles Bullock, who studied 1222 run-offs between 1970 and 1986 for his book, “Runoff Elections in the United States”, the system is used in twelve states, ten of which are southern and they date back to the days of one-party rule.

Most of the southern states adopted them shortly after the turn of the century, when Jim Crow laws had effectively disenfranchised blacks, so if he is to be believed, they were actually more geared toward “fringe candidates”. In fact, he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in 2009 that Arkansas had adopted them to prevent the Klan from taking over the state Democratic Party and in 2008, he pointed out to the Raleigh News and Observer that though there were some high-profile instances where a black candidate had been hurt by the system, there’s at least one example of an African-American prevailing statewide in NC and he cited another example, where in a majority black district, an African-American candidate had been helped.

As my avatar may reveal, I’m a North Carolina native and though I didn’t recall any primary run-offs earlier, I can see from the interview that he did with the N&O that there have been three statewide in the modern era, one in ’76, one in ’84 and another in ’90. I probably should’ve remembered the latter two, but for some reason, I did not.

Also, I should say that the 1982 congressional run-off, which had worked against the black candidate was concurrent with my Poli Sci 101, so that may explain why the topic had been part of the discussion and perhaps as an excuse for myself and Chris, Professor Bullock labels the perception as one of several popular myths.
—

Disclosure: I know nothing of Mr. Bullock’s politics and if I could edit or delete one or more of my previous comments, I’d be all over it. Though if nothing else, I’ve learned something from this exercise and because I had a misimpression, I can’t blame Chris for believing the same as myself.

Oh, and if you were to only read one of the links, I recommend the N&O piece.

Of course, while the Arkansas run-off may or may not have been originally established to prevent white supremacists from taking over the Democrats, a “fringe candidate” could also be defined as someone wanting to overturn Jim Crow and the run-off system has been effectively used against minority candidates in the past.

(I’m going to shut-up now, but it’s been fun arguing with and educating myself. Pardons.)

Matthews is actually spot on. The racist Democrats did use runoffs in order to ensure a white candidate. Black make up a smaller proportion of the electorate, but with several whitre candidates fielded, with a unufied voting bloc, a black candidate would be able to win wityh a plurality.

In a one to one matchup, a white person would be more likely to win the needed majority.

American political history is rife with Democrat machination and corruption

Are you people saying that blacks would always vote for a black candidate and if you could dilute the white vote among enough candidates the black would win? My state has a 7% black population so that would take a lot of white candidates for this system to work.

The Racism on the left has just got to stop…..

Uh oh .. Slip of the tongue eh Matthews? Yeah that ‘ old southern democrat party ‘ , was the party of with racism .. The history of the democratic party is a taboo topic among the modern day media.

It really is such a simple analysis. How many African-Americans hold elective office as Republicans? As Democrats? Case closed.

The Real Royal King says:
“It really is such a simple analysis. How many African-Americans hold elective office as Republicans? As Democrats? Case closed.”

Well, as long as African-Americans are not allowed to have an independent thought, it is going to stay that way. The DNC plantation does not allow them to think of themselves as individuals, with independent thoughts, with different experiences and beliefs. They are to tow the DNC line, claim racism at every corner, only view themselves as a member of a hyphenated group. Caucasians on the other hand are allowed to have differing thoughts, and views depending on their life experience, and beliefs. It’s rather sad how the DNC won’t let them off the plantation.

There is some grain of truth in what you say, but the flip side is that African-Americans don’t seem to be welcome and most assuredly do not feel welcome elsewhere.

Come One Come all! http://www.libertarianism.com/

The Real Royal King says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:07 am
There is some grain of truth in what you say, but the flip side is that African-Americans don’t seem to be welcome and most assuredly do not feel welcome elsewhere.

That’s bullshit, they’re welcome they just won’t switch while under the grip of the “we’ll give you everything” party. You (dems) have created an entire segment of the population dependent on your gravy train, it’s virtual enslavement, all under the guise of “helping” the less fortunate, while actually making them totally dependent.

And you have the balls to call conservatives racist. You guys own the plantation, not us.

I have to say, Timzank has a point. It appears that the DNC has attracted the black vote by promising them everything. The DNC plantation tells the black population that it’s no not their responsibility to better themselves, it’s the governments responsibility, and if you vote for the DNC, we will give you what you need. Additionally, the race card is thrown around. The DNC portrays conservative thinking as “racist” because it centers around personal responsibility.

Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:35 am

EXACTLY.

Slave owners before emancipation…. private individuals
Slave owners after emancipation… U. S. Government. difference being. all races now

Well said, Tim.

Boy this week has really brought out the lib racists and anti-Semites. I love it!

Once again, the King speaks for the black community.

The Real Royal King says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:07 am
“There is some grain of truth in what you say, but the flip side is that African-Americans don’t seem to be welcome and most assuredly do not feel welcome elsewhere.”

Perhaps there will be a realization that the promise of ” whiskey and blankets ” don’t necessarily mean welcome to the neighborhood.

The Real Royal King says:
June 9, 2010 at 7:59 am

It really is such a simple analysis. How many African-Americans hold elective office as Republicans? As Democrats? Case closed.

YET AGAIN:

Among the many reverberations of President Obama’s election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/us/politics/05blacks.html

The “analysis” put forth by King, and those who have been told what to copy/paste from the left is incredibly offensive, misleading, and stupid. Republicans have had Black congress people before (JC Watts left in 2003)… so the argument that they “currently have none” is just dumb.

Royal, why do you keep pushing this debunked argument? Doesn’t this prove you’re a hack with limited ethics? (Yes… it does.)

Wasn’t that long ago that Chris said he sometimes forgets Obama is black. I guess he’s able to differentiate once again.