It is amusing, however, that in this case, in order to promote their views, they must acknowledge they have very weak skills when it comes to reading comprehension and political analysis. While people like baker may prefer authors keep writing simple so they can better understand the discussion, others clearly don’t mind a little mental exercise.

Advertising should be dumbed down for the widest possible understanding. The same standard should not be demanded of editorials, political discussions, or anything else that is actually designed to make people think. Personally, I’m far more turned off by simplistic, spoon-feeding of opinions. But that’s just my opinion.

“REAL” minorities. As in the only minorities present in high enough numbers to affect elections, i.e., African Americans. As opposed to minorities-who-don’t-have-their-own-caucuses-in-Congress minorities, like Jewish Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Wiccans, etc. As in any other group whose voting block is too small (even if every last one of them showed up to vote),that no major candidate spends any amount of time courting.

It’s very simple, really.

One other aspect regarding the minority reference from Mande that I missed (and feel stupid about having done so) is the vote of women. I have yet to read her newer piece, but it seems that she may have been referring to the female “minority” in this piece we are discussing. If so, then the quotation marks were certainly appropriate. And perhaps our discussion, while fun, was simply missing the real point.

In all likelihood, however, I am “smarter” than you, at least by the conventional measuring standards. Then again, I’ve always tested very well. But I’ve also shown your positions to be false, which required a very small amount of research. So maybe I’m not actually “smarter” than you, but more willing to do a little research before making statements that can be easily refuted.

Still, you say “this year COULD be…” and “if that 80% holds…” Sounds to me that you’re talking in the future tense. Mande stated that “‘real’ minorities” (still not sure what ‘real’ means in this context) have already made their cameo — past tense. So, I guess I’m still not clear.

As for courting the black vote, nobody said candidates don’t try. The question is whether or not they represent a decisive block. Again, name me a presidential election where people claim the black vote was one of the deciding factors. Clinton in ‘92 simply doesn’t work.

The Democratic Party fight for the black vote in primaries is understood, and I already mentioned that. But it’s nice to see you do concede the crux of Mande’s point you originally tried to question. I agree with you when you say “in the general election black voter turnout could be a huge factor.” Again, that was the point of the “cameo” comment. Historically, not as big a factor in the general. This year, perhaps they will make an appearance to turn the election in Obama’s favor.

But don’t misread what Mande (I presume) and I are saying. People can discuss the role black voters play in the elections all they want. That’s not the debate. But discussing the role doesn’t mean that it is any greater than it actually is when the votes are all counted. Historically, that is. This year could very well be different. If that 80%+ holds, coupled with turnout higher than normal (which is the projection), Obama could very well win, and point to the black vote as one of the blocks that delivered him the White House. Again, that was the point of the “cameo” comment.

I didn’t “back up my opinion” about the influence of blacks politically because I figured it was accepted fact. You seem to dispute that notion, and that’s fine. I understand your reasoning and you make some good points.

Nonetheless, whether or not black voters cast the deciding swing vote in many elections, politicians from both parties address black organizations such as the NAACP…it’s part of the political process. Certainly, the black vote has probably decisive for Democrats a number of times. I don’t have the math in front of me, but would Bill Clinton have won in 1992 without gaining a huge majority of the black vote?

And within the Democratic Party, gaining the upper hand on the African-American vote is seen as a key. That block of voters is pretty vital. It’s certainly more pronounced this year, and, yes, I think that in the general election black voter turnout could be a huge factor.

But in no way would agree that African-American influence in elections is anything new. After all, some have alleged that the GOP tried to keep black voters in Florida from voting in 2000, paving the way for George W. Bush’s Presidency…..not sure I agree with the voter suppression argument, but point is that people have discussed intensely the role black voters (or non-voters) played in that historic election.

You can drop the “Ah, Sid.” It’s just sid. See what I did there? I took your attempt at being funny and made it even funnier. I’m so clever.

Anyway, you can disagree with the premise, but if you are going to do so, you need to supply some actual reasoning. Or is Mande the only one who needs to back up her opinions?

The fact is that the black vote has, for the most part, been going to Democrats since the ’60s. Perhaps longer. But name me one Presidential election since 1964 where the outcome was said to be determined by the black vote. Lately it’s been soccer moms and NASCAR dads. There were the Reagan Democrats. There’s always talk about the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt. And, of course, the union vote. But rarely (if ever) do you hear talk about the black vote, other than in the Democratic Primary. This year, it’s different.

The general concept is, if you get 80% of the vote of a particular block of voters, but only 20% of those eligible to vote go to the polls, then the role played by that block is far less significant than if 50%+ go to the polls. Get it? These numbers are not actual stats, but used just for the sake of example. I’m sure if you wanted to do a little research you could find real numbers to prove/disprove the concept.

As for your views on the quality of the work in question, I think your opinion is better summed up by saying, “I don’t like Mande, and will pick every nit I can find.” If her work is so bad, surely everyone else will see that and ignore it. I don’t think anyone needs your guidance as to what to accept and what to reject. You just don’t impress me that much as someone whose opinion carries any real weight. But that’s just my opinion.