:dubious: Oh, come on! Everyone knows Jeff Davis played for the Yankee’s…
-XT
Let’s see, Condoleeza Rice is one, ClarenceThomas is two, Armstrong Williams is three (although they had to pay him in advance). That about covers it.
PS Oh, and maybe JC Watts.
I’ve heard the Jefferson Davis statistic mentioned in a couple of places so I assume there’s something to it. I would guess his name was actually on the poll and a few people said they approved of his historical record as President. Granted, some people have the historical awareness of squirrels, so maybe they had him confused with Thomas Jefferson. Or maybe Geena Davis.
Hispanics are much less politically unified than blacks, though; “hispanic” subsumes a lot of nationalities with, in some cases, radically different interests and average incomes. It’s been pointed out that Cubans tend to go Republican, which isn’t a surprise, since Cubans also tend to be pretty well-off. Looking at it by individual nationalities can reveal a lot more interesting information.
It sounds a lot more like the parents of most poor blacks are Democrats and those of most poor whites are Republicans. People tend to follow along with their family and local opinion. Even if there was one party that had a monopoly on “rightness”, most of the people voting for them would just be following along with their local crowd rather than figuring it out for themselves.
I’d appreciate cites, because without them this sounds like a myth.
I can’t find any discussion on the net, after searching “history of polling” and combinations of that and like wording, and with “blacks” and “civil war” and “Davis.” In fact, nothing fills the hole between 1824 and 1916. Most histories dwell on the 1932 Landon-Roosevelt polling errors and those that culminated in the Chicago Daily Tribune’s Dewey Defeats Truman headline, in 1948.
The history of U.S.-election and other polling, according to Wikipedia at the time of my post, jumps from 1824 to 1916. Gallup, according to this, was, in the 1930s, among the first, if not the first, to base polling on methods that attempt to avoid the pitfalls, thereby illustrating that if a prediction made from any previous poll was correct, it was coincidental.
Aside from this, I agree with alphaboi867. The image of pollsters travelling around the South by horse and buggy in a land stripped for and by war, and asking a population of slaves whether they support Davis, is absurd. Even if that happened in any shape or form — and what, exactly, was the supposed question — who could believe slaves would say Lincoln, unless they had a death wish? Even five per cent would be too high. The number probably is cited in an attempt to make the ridiculous story of the “poll” believable.
Saying that even fewer blacks nationwide support Bush than supported Davis on the evidence of answers supplied by a subset of only 89 people out of a sampling of only 807, and the returns of what without cites can only be a fantasy civil-war poll, only weakens the argument being made.
Uhhh, Foaming, I thought it was pretty obvious this poll was conducted in 2005 not 1860.
Unless you’re making a joke, in which case I bow before your mastery of irony.
That shouldn’t make me laugh so hard.
I’m here all week. 
[Bush 2004 Debate Mode]"ELDER. You forgot LARRY ELDER!![/Bush 2004 Debate Mode]