I only heard Obama’s speech on radio. I found it restrained and presidential, rather that lackluster or unimpressive. I thought it tied together Michelle Obama’s themes of hard work is needed to rebuild and Obama is a good man with Clinton’s themes of yes we are better off and the Republicans (and, I guess, Romney, but who knows?) will send us back to the stone-age.
So, I found that the impassioned ending to the strong but quiet speech very inspiring.
But, I did not see the speech. I wonder if anyone who just listened had a very good impression?
That is fascinating; he is the only politician I would leave alone in my dining room without locking up the silver.
That’s a gross distortion of reality. Yes Roosevelt and Eleanor reached out to blacks at a time when the Republicans ignored them, but up until 1964, the Republicans still did well among blacks. For example Eisenhower got 40% of the black vote against quite possibly the most progressive Presidential candidate of the 20th Century and Nixon did almost as well against Kennedy in 1960(and would have done better if he, like Kennedy, had called MLK when King had been unfairly jailed).
It was only in 1964, following Barry Goldwater’s nomination, which was a giant middle finger to the African-American community that support plummeted to the point hat Democrats got 90+% of the black vote.
OMG, I read your link. It doesn’t appear to support your original point very well, but of course you could weasel “overwhelmingly” if things get tough.
Except it does. Only in la la land does a 70 - 30 split prior to 1964, on average, constitute one group not voting overwhelmingly for one party.
(Well, unless we’re talking about Hispanics, where a 70 - 30 split constitutes them overwhelmingly supporting one party, as the saying goes.)
I mean, seriously. In politics a 5% difference is considered huge. What do you think a 40% difference, on average, constitutes? But, hey. I appreciate the attempted defense there.
Your link shows a pretty clear divide starting in 1964- before that, Republicans tended to get around a third of the black vote. After that, they got less than 10%. It’s pretty clear that something changed around then. And looking at history, it’s pretty clear that Civil Rights and the southern strategy had a lot to do with it.
I think this is a good assessment of it. It wasn’t a lofty or gran as speeches he gave in the past, and so I think a lot of pundits and analysts are in comparison mode, hence the “disappointment.” But he doesn’t necessarily need lofty, he’s the damn president, and I think that’s a good way to deliver his message for the rest of the campaign: by looking and sounding more presidential than the other guy.
Er… both Eisenhower in 1956 and Nixon in 1960 did better then that(Eisenhower winning 40% of the black vote while Nion won a third of the black vote) and Nixon would have done vastly better had he not refused to call MLK when King was unfairly jailed.
Blacks were pretty evenly split between Nixon and Kennedy until Kennedy called King when King was in jail while Nixon refused.
In fact, following the phone call, MLK Sr. said he never thouhgt he’d vote for a Democrat or a Catholic, but because of what JFK did, he’d changed his mind.
Okay, so do you not know what “on average” means? You seem to be focusing one two elections but, even then, the spread isn’t as close as you make it (Table 1).
Prior to 1964, the “closest” elections were in 1940 (a 35 point spread) and 1956 (a 22 point spread). The 1960 election split the same as the 1944 election. Now just straight averaging the elections from 1936 - 1960, you get a spread of approximately 69.71 - 30 in favor of the Dems (a 40 point difference), exactly what I said. Again, you’re going to be hard-pressed to argue against anything typed out because no matter how you slice it it’s true that Blacks have voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party since 1936 (really 1932). You can argue that Blacks have voted moreso for the Democratic party since 1964, but it doesn’t have anything to do with my initial comment or the comment I was responding to. The overwhelming majority of Blacks have been supporting the Democratic party LONG before the parties redistributed or the Southern Strategy.
BTW> I’d be willing to bet that the Southern Strategy itself had little to do with the shift and moreso Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Civil Rights Acts. Curiously, this is bred out in evidence as older Blacks are more likely to identify as Democrats than are younger Blacks.
Michelle Obama is almost every bit as qualified to be President as Hilary Clinton; the only thing she’s currently missing is a term as a Senator. But she’s an accomplished attorney who will have had two terms as First Lady by 2016, so I say:
Michelle Obama 2016!
Actually, Romney laid out his “plan” in his acceptance speech, and guess what? It’s exactly the same as the one George W. Bush laid out in his 2004 acceptance speech!
Romney’s “plan” to create 12 million new jobs had five parts:
[ol]
[li]Energy independence (by 2020)[/li][li]School choice[/li][li]New trade agreements, and retaliation against nations that cheat on them[/li][li]Cut the deficit[/li][li]Cut regulations and taxes on small businesses, and repeal the ACA[/li][/ol]
…
On September 2nd, 2004, George W. Bush is at the RNC, giving his speech accepting the nomination to run for a second term as President of the United States. … What are some priorities for a second George W. Bush term in creating jobs?
[5] To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent.
[1] To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
[3] To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe.
[5] And we must protect small-business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across our country. Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess…
[4] To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for. He’s proposed more than $2 trillion in new federal spending so far, and that’s a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.
It’s the same agenda, mentioned back to back almost in the same order. Bush mentioned No Child Left Behind several times, though I’m not sure if that matches up with the school choice of [2] in Romney’s economic plan for school choice, so I excluded [2]. It’s always time for cutting spending, more oil drilling, free trade, and lower taxes and regulation to fix the economy.
The more things change, the more they stay the same for the Republican Party, eh?
I wish I had known you were going to be there; I was there, too!!
Uhm, actually, unlike their counterpart on the Right, the leader of the Democratic Party not only intends to accept and abide by his party’s platform, he intends to have input into it. These changes were dictated by President Obama, not “the Dems.” Mitt Romney, on the other hand, distanced himself from his own party’s platform, as if one should have no responsibility to uphold their own party’s philosophies if one is elected by them. That’s a screw-up.
The Gallup poll shows a two-point net gain for Obama — he’s up 48 percent to 45 on Romney today. Before the convention, he was up 47-46. Romney lost two points in the aftermath of the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
The key number, though: His job approval now stands at 52 percent, up from 49 percent and now above the 50-percent threshold that usually ensures re-election.
Wow.
I watched him give that speech, btw, and sitting in that arena was ELECTRIFYING.
Not Live and in person it didn’t. I lurves me those Montana Democrats, and Brian Schweitzer had the crowd ROARING.
Funny you should mention pumps. First, those of us in the audience could barely hear half of what she said because the roar of the crowd was so incredibly loud. The only way I knew what she was saying was by reading the closed captioning on the jumbotron. But I met her after the event and gave her a laugh when I told her I thought her speech was awesome, but I was waiting for her to take her shoe off and wave it in the air (a la 2008 when she introduced Barack Obama at a rally in Detriot).
Seriously? What speech were you listening to? The one I heard had this line in it:
It’s arithmetic. We simply can’t afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double-down on trickle-down.
What an amazing week. I don’t know which speeches made it onto television and which didn’t, but Eva Longoria was brilliant, and I can’t believe no one here mentioned Charlie Crist! Did that speech get televised? If not, it totally should have.
as a former lifelong Republican, it pains me to tell you that today’s Republicans—and their standard-bearers, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan—just aren’t up to the task. They’re beholden to “my way or the highway” bullies, indebted to billionaires who bankroll ads and allergic to the very idea of compromise. Ronald Reagan would not have stood for that. Barack Obama does not stand for that. You and I won’t stand for that.
As for President Obama’s speech, I have to wonder if half the pundits who panned it were anywhere near that arena. It was so freaking loud in there through most of his speech that, like Jennifer Granholm’s (and several others, actually), the only way to follow it was to read the text on the giant screens. Every speaker brought the house down in their own way. Every single one. It was incredible and amazing.
It was televised, at least on MSNBC. I watched it and thought it was one of several moments likely to make Republicans throw something at their televisions in fury. I thought he was incredibly effective.
First, those of us in the audience could barely hear half of what she said because the roar of the crowd was so incredibly loud. The only way I knew what she was saying was by reading the closed captioning on the jumbotron. But I met her after the event and gave her a laugh when I told her I thought her speech was awesome, but I was waiting for her to 
