where are the nairaland republicans

our party has elected the first african american chairman. let the fight for the black votes begin

it's time to ask the real guestions to african americans . . .

has the democrat party taken us(and our votes) for granted?

the rennaissance erupts

hehehehehe . . . . i laugh in swahili

Seems the KKK is losing its grip on the GOP.

the black vote wont be so easily won over to the republican side. Obama is still extremely popular among blacks.

davidylan:

the black vote wont be so easily won over to the republican side. Obama is still extremely popular among blacks.

True, but there are many "values" blacks who would have loved to be part of the GOP but for the seeming monochromatic image of the party of Lincoln.

@RichyBlack,

True, but there are many "values" blacks who would have loved to be part of the GOP but for the seeming monochromatic image of the party of Lincoln.

Is it not ironic that the Party of Lincoln is regarded as anti-black? The Democrats through FDR used a welfare system to corner the black votes, and they know it is the same welfare system that will keep them. Unfortunately for the Black community, they do not realise that the fact the Dems give them money does not mean they care about them. The Dems have only created a situation where the Blacks are dependent on them. This is why they keep growing the govt and giving just about enough to the Black community to survive and keep coming back for more.

Tayo are the black dems simply there because of welfare cash? One look at the make up of the Republican party is enough to send a black person scurrying to the other side. Its almost completely a white religious club.

@Davidylan,

Tayo are the black dems simply there because of welfare cash? One look at the make up of the Republican party is enough to send a black person scurrying to the other side. Its almost completely a white religious club.

Of course not all the blacks are there because of welfare. Many are there and supporting the Dems 'cos of perception that they care more for the Blacks than the RNC. I say they cannot be further from the truth. It is the this lingering perception transfered from one generation to another that makes each Party what it is today.

As for the RNC, I think they have stuck to some principles without being tactful in its expression. Conservatism, which the RNC is supposed to stand for believes in the dignity of the individual without any apologies. It's just like your stance here on nairaland aganist Islam and its evil manifestations. Many here say you hate muslims which is simply not the case. You stand by a set of principles and expressing them atimes may seem mean to the other parties. Others have called you muslim hater for so long that they believe it. This is the same thing that has happened to the RNC over the years. They've not tried to explain themselves but believes that their principles and core values when understood, should expressly dispel any cloud of racism that may be hanging over them.

As a black man, I will feel more comfortable with a Republican than I will with a Democrat. The RNC's values are more in line with Africans than the DNC. Think about it.

What effect will he have as a party chairman?. I think they were being corny because for them to suddenly elect a black man immidiately after Obama looks so desperate. GOP should regroup their party and include programs that will attract young people . If they think electing a black man as chairman will erase the common notion that they are an association of rednecks all of a sudden, they better have another think coming. I think they are using Steele as an object to reinvigorate their party and allow the chosen ones to ascend the throne. I hate partisan politics.

earTHMama:

What effect will he have as a party chairman?. I think they were being corny because for them to suddenly elect a black man immidiately after Obama looks so desperate. GOP should regroup their party and include programs that will attract young people . If they think electing a black man as chairman will erase the common notion that they are an association of rednecks all of a sudden, they better have another think coming. I think they are using Steele as an object to reinvigorate their party and allow the chosen ones to ascend the throne. I hate partisan politics.

U hit it spot on. Reactionary type politics (Sarah Palin rings a bell dont it?) afer the initial gra-gra, effectively lost the election for the GOP.

And guess what, they are at it again.

Tayo-D:

@Davidylan,
Of course not all the blacks are there because of welfare. Many are there and supporting the Dems 'cos of perception that they care more for the Blacks than the RNC.  I say they cannot be further from the truth.  It is the this lingering perception transfered from one generation to another that makes each Party what it is today.

As for the RNC, I think they have stuck to some principles without being tactful in its expression. Conservatism, which the RNC is supposed to stand for believes in the dignity of the individual without any apologies.  It's just like your stance here on nairaland aganist Islam and its evil manifestations. Many here say you hate muslims which is simply not the case. You stand by a set of principles and expressing them atimes may seem mean to the other parties. Others have called you muslim hater for so long that they believe it.  This is the same thing that has happened to the RNC over the years. They've not tried to explain themselves but believes that their principles and core values when understood, should expressly dispel any cloud of racism that may be hanging over them.

As a black man, I will feel more comfortable with a Republican than I will with a Democrat. The RNC's values are more in line with Africans than the DNC.  Think about it.

But what principles Tayo? What are these principles that tie you to the Republican party ?

Conservatism, economic conservatism at least has been totally discredited. That it took this long for its adherents to see the light is what baffles me.
Governments simply cannot get smaller. It is impossible. Spending only goes one way, and that is up. The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is where this spending should go. All that claptrap about letting the individual spend their tax dollars. . . .hogwash.

And it is this value system that prevented the Republican government from attacking the root cause of the economic crisis. It is a lot more acceptable to bailout banks than it is to bailout homeowners who took out bad loans. It would be unfair to the many who took out good loans they said. It is un-American bla bla bla. Well, 1.6 trillion dollars later, I bet they wished they had spent few hundred billions that might have staved off this disaster.

It is no use enunciating principles that simply do not have any bearing in reality. ''Small government'' is a fallacy, and I was pleasantly shocked when prominent Fox newsanchor and ''low key voice for conservatism'' Britt Hume suggested as much. ''We keep harping on about small government'' he said, ''but from Reagan down to the Second Bush, our governments have gotten bigger not smaller. . .''

I can tell from your postings, you detest the idea of helping lazy black folks who live on handouts. From your argument, you suggest blacks support the Democrats because of the handouts they are drip fed. But the thing is, the black folks who live on handouts are the least likely to vote. They are the least politically active. It is the tax paying black folks who provide active and not simply vocal support for the Democratic party. So it is a bit patronising to suggest blacks only support the Democrats because of the handouts they are given or promised by the Democratic party.

Going with David's comments, the Republican party has become a party of the anti-intellectual, gun toting, trilby hat wearing, nascar racing folks. What might have been a neurotic perception rife amongst the black community about the Republican party has become the reality. Whether it is a self fulfilling prophecy is besides the point. It is this reality that prevents still keeps the religiosity of the black community from finding a common ground with the more religious party in American politics. That is why, blacks vote en masse for Obama in California and reject Proposition whatever on the same token.

It all boils down to a question of identity Tayo. Principles are thrown out the window as identity trumps all. Especially when those principles derive from fantasies.

I think they were being corny because for them to suddenly elect  a black man

I don't believe so. I think it was a genuine move.
First, the election is over. If it was a manipulative move, it would have been made before the vote. Obama has a full term in office so this isn't really going to make a difference to the electorate.
Second, Steele was really the only moderate on offer. I believe the GOP recognises the fact that it has to become less right wing and reclaim some of the middle ground.

Conservatism, economic conservatism at least has been totally discredited.

No it hasn't. Only the regulatory area of conservatism has been discredited. The idea of the free-market is still the best that is on offer and it is far superior to socialist economics which inevitably lead to boom and bust.

Bastage:

No it hasn't. Only the regulatory area of conservatism has been discredited. The idea of the free-market is still the best that is on offer and it is far superior to socialist economics which inevitably lead to boom and bust.

The merits of the free market I will leave for another day.

My main concern here is the idea that ''small government'' i.e a significant cut in government spending, is achievable.

@ Tayo and Doyin,

I have been following your conversation and you guys make many salient points.

Tayo is correct that most Africans are conservatives. I certainly am.

The problem is that the RNC does not know how to define itself. There is a civil war going on in the RNC.

RNC absorbed many anti-civil rights whites and they have come to define the party more and more which is what puts off black voters. Nothing to do with welfare handouts. As Doyin rightly pointed out, many (maybe most) of those welfare recipients do not even bother to vote.

I do not know what RNC stands for anymore.

Is it the party of fiscal conservatism anymore?

Is it the party of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh or is it the party of the Rocefeller Republicans?

Too many extremists have found a strong voice within the Republican party.

I think the Republican party is split in two, between true conservatives and rabid warmongers and rednecks.

@doyin13,

But what principles Tayo? What are these principles that tie you to the Republican party ?

You will notice from my earlier submission that I said the RNC is supposed to stand for conservatism. This represents my core values ahead of anything the Dems represent.

Conservatism, economic conservatism at least has been totally discredited. That it took this long for its adherents to see the light is what baffles me.

That is not true. Can you tell us when true economic conservatism has been freely practiced? Don't tell me the Bush administration practiced it 'cos it is not true. Bush practiced what I believe he refered to as compassionate conservatism. The truth is that the social empathy attached to practicing consetrvatism is what led to the problems experienced.

Governments simply cannot get smaller. It is impossible. Spending only goes one way, and that is up. The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is where this spending should go. All that claptrap about letting the individual spend their tax dollars. . . .hogwash.

Whay can't govt get smaller or just stay at about the same size? Must Obama grow the govt as he is now doing with the so-called stimulus package? The truth is that politicians grow govt to achieve political goals. Tell me, what do you think the govt role should be in the society? Maybe when we clarify this, then we can determine if govt size can be kept within reasonable means or otherwise.

And it is this value system that prevented the Republican government from attacking the root cause of the economic crisis. It is a lot more acceptable to bailout banks than it is to bailout homeowners who took out bad loans. It would be unfair to the many who took out good loans they said. It is un-American bla bla bla. Well, 1.6 trillion dollars later, I bet they wished they had spent few hundred billions that might have staved off this disaster.

And what is the root cause of the wahala? Is it not the attempt to manipulate the market by creating artificial demand through legislation? That is not conservatism. Bush spent more money than any govt in the US hisory. So if throwing money at the problem will solve it, we would have been out of it by now. Are you aware that even Obama did not stick his neck out that the stimulus will reverse this downward spiral? They are just throwing more money at the problem for lack of better ideas and for political expediency.

It is no use enunciating principles that simply do not have any bearing in reality. ''Small government'' is a fallacy, and I was pleasantly shocked when prominent Fox newsanchor and ''low key voice for conservatism'' Britt Hume suggested as much. ''We keep harping on about small government'' he said, ''but from Reagan down to the Second Bush, our governments have gotten bigger not smaller. . .''

Reagan reduced the size of govt in real terms. He cut govt spending relative to the GDP but we are not seeing the same with subsequent govt. So what is the optimum size of govt in your opinion? Or are we going to keep growing govt until spending is equivalent to the GDP?

I can tell from your postings, you detest the idea of helping lazy black folks who live on handouts.

You see I don't. This is the same perception problem that the GOP has. I am convinced that such should be left in the private sector who can do much better. Do you know that conservatives give more of their money to the poor than socialists? I'm not sure my figures are right, but they should be very close. There was one year when Al Gore gave less than $1,000 to the poor and Cheney gave millions. But which of the two do you think people see as more compassionate? You see, govt gives money to achieve a political goal while a private citizen will do so out of real compasssion. Do you think Obama's is allocating about $8 billion to ACORN in this stimulus bill out of compassion or out of political expediency?

From your argument, you suggest blacks support the Democrats because of the handouts they are drip fed. But the thing is, the black folks who live on handouts are the least likely to vote. They are the least politically active. It is the tax paying black folks who provide active and not simply vocal support for the Democratic party. So it is a bit patronising to suggest blacks only support the Democrats because of the handouts they are given or promised by the Democratic party.

You get me wrong. It is not just what the Democrats are doing, but what is the prvalent perception of the GOP. It is that perception that is passed from one generation to another which eventually led to what we have today. Until Obama, it was the Republicans who have done more and put Blacks in position of power ahead of the DNC.

Going with David's comments, the Republican party has become a party of the anti-intellectual, gun toting, trilby hat wearing, nascar racing folks. What might have been a neurotic perception rife amongst the black community about the Republican party has become the reality. Whether it is a self fulfilling prophecy is besides the point. It is this reality that prevents still keeps the religiosity of the black community from finding a common ground with the more religious party in American politics. That is why, blacks vote en masse for Obama in California and reject Proposition whatever on the same token.

Which supports my point earlier. Blacks are really more conservative leaning and should in fact feel more at home with the RNC than the DNC.

It all boils down to a question of identity Tayo. Principles are thrown out the window as identity trumps all. Especially when those principles derive from fantasies.

While I agree with you that this is all about identity, I disagree with calling the principles fantasies. That others who should practice it do not does not deprive the principles of its practicalities. It just means that core values can be easily thrown out the window in the face of political expediency. I do believe that the RNC will have to conntend with the realities of the day where identity and style trumps substance. The question is how can they effectively combine both?

Let me just share a colleague's story with you. His son ran against another class mate to become the class captain. So while his son tried to come up with genuine things to do and convince his classmates that he was the right choice, his opponent just went around promising the electorate that he will buy everyone ice cream if they voted for him. Of course the guy who promised the ice cream won hands down. This is what I see happening in the larger society today. But what many do not know is that for a govt to give one person a dime, the same govt will first have to deprive another person of that money.

@Tayo.

LOL. . . .I still find this dissection of points somewhat of an acquired taste. My thoughts are too scrambled to be so neat and precise but I will try to reply you as succinctly as I can.

On the question you ask, ''. . . any place where economic conservatism has been freely practiced?'' Well, as at the present moment, there is no place where the sort of unfettered capitalism you propose is truly observed. But this on the other hand proves my point, it is a mirage and unrealistic to expect the kind of capitalism you want alongside the current democratic dispensation. It was a lot easier for the pre first world war economies in Europe and the States to practice this form of laissez faire economics, because the franchise was restricted either by age or gender or a bit earlier by property or wealth. The widening of the franchise to a larger population essentially meant this sort of economics was a no no. No reasonable man will vote for a party that offers him no succour in his time of need, leaving him to the vagaries of the market or the temperament of a wealthy benefactor. It was the strict adherence to this form of economics that helped to facilitate the rise of the radical politics of the interwar years, whether of the communist or fascist kind.

On your other point. . . .that politicians spend to achieve political goals. Well, tough. It is democracy. I wish politicians would aim for loftier, world changing goals, but unfortunately, that's a one way street to political suicide. A politician's only incentive is how many votes he can garner. And spending money on his constituents is one sure way to achieve his aim. Democrats choose to craft this parochial goal in social democratic garb, the republicans do so with nationalist tough talk. I guess this leads me to the issue of Reagan and his spending. I have read and re read various arguments for and against the proposition he reduced spending. Notable though, the proposition is only valid if defence spending is set aside, otherwise, the conclusion is that he is just as big a spendthrift as his predecessors and successors. All that ''Great America'' talk has to be substantiated after all. It plays well to the gallery as much as it does shoring up the national defence.

Unfortunately that gallery does not include a couple of hard up folks who took loans that exceeded their means. I disagree that this artificial demand(I am assuming it is the subprime mess you are referring to) while being the root cause of the crisis is the primary source of the crisis as it stands today. It is the pyramid scheme of derivatives built on this shaky foundation of subprime loans by bankers, bankers who were hitherto, heroes of American capitalism, creators of wealth and of course masters of the universe. Many of the bonuses which they earned, that we have discovered fraudulently, were significant proportions of the contributions to charities and good causes during the boom years. But I am even wary of the nature of some of these contributions. T. Boone Pickens, oil man extraordinnaire, donates 1 billion dollars to his alma mater, but with the proviso, the money be ploughed back into his hedge fund for him to invest.  makes you start to think of the thin line between charity and subtle tax evasion.

@doyin13,

LOL. . . .I still find this dissection of points somewhat of an acquired taste. My thoughts are too scrambled to be so neat and precise but I will try to reply you as succinctly as I can.

I do share your sentiments, even though it helps to keep me on points.

On the question you ask, ''. . . any place where economic conservatism has been freely practiced?'' Well, as at the present moment, there is no place where the sort of unfettered capitalism you propose is truly observed. ,  No reasonable man will vote for a party that offers him no succour in his time of need, leaving him to the vagaries of the market or the temperament of a wealthy benefactor.

So how can you adjudge the system a failure when it has not been truly practiced?  On the other hand, we've seen every other system of economics that are practiced globally in distress.  Whether it is in China or Rusia, everyone is groaning because they are practicing some form of bastardized free market system. No one can declare in all good conscience that this is the failure of the free market system. On your other point, I will rather be subject to the vagaries of the market than that of a politician. You can predict the direction of a free market system but not the soul of a politician. And the global problem now just suggests that even the Politician is subject to the market. When you tamper with it, it bites you back big time.

On your other point. . . .that politicians spend to achieve political goals. Well, tough. It is democracy. I wish politicians would aim for loftier, world changing goals, but unfortunately, that's a one way street to political suicide. A politician's only incentive is how many votes he can garner. And spending money on his constituents is one sure way to achieve his aim. Democrats choose to craft this parochial goal in social democratic garb, the republicans do so with nationalist tough talk.

So if a Politicians goal is self-preservation, why should I entrust my fate in his hands? In other words, I can kiss my bum goodbye if my welfare does not achieve his political end. I am therefore a pun in his hands that can be played however way suits the politicians. Now compare this to the market which alsways have one aim - profit. I can predict the direction the market is going just by the simple law of supply and demand.  This way, I can position myself to take advantage of the market. This is not the case when some politician try to manipulate it. And if this go out of balance, the market will always correct itself. I believe what is going on right now is the painful process of market correction and instead of our politicians to leave it alone, they'd rather try to fix it thereby creating more problems along the way.

I disagree that this artificial demand(I am assuming it is the subprime mess you are referring to) while being the root cause of the crisis is the primary source of the crisis as it stands today. It is the pyramid scheme of derivatives built on this shaky foundation of subprime loans by bankers, bankers who were hitherto, heroes of American capitalism, creators of wealth and of course masters of the universe.

Indeed the subprime mortgages are the faulty foundation upon which this economic downturn is built. Guess who mandated this subprime mortgages, the market? No the govt! And why did reasonable investors suspend their common sense and built this pyramid scheme of derivatives on the subprime loans? The answer againn is the same - the govt! The govt asured everyone that they will back up the subprime loans, and investors sensing a win-win situation invested in what they would have otherwise ran away from.  So we see that uneccesary participation in the markets by the govt is the alpha and omega of this whole wahala. Why no one is seeing this and acknowledging it as so still beats me.

RNC absorbed many anti-civil rights whites and they have come to define the party more and more which is what puts off black voters. Nothing to do with welfare handouts. As Doyin rightly pointed out, many (maybe most) of those welfare recipients do not even bother to vote.

i thot all the anti civil rights are all dead by now? we still have anti civil right in RNC?

let's see how they will embrass the black guy.

Tayo-D:

I do share your sentiments . . .
. . . Why no one is seeing this and acknowledging it as so still beats me.

I do see your point sugarplum, please keep it coming

_{Don't let me stop you in your track babe, I'm outta here}

@Busy_body,

Don't let me stop you in your track babe, I'm outta here

It's too late already babe. Your showing up is enough to get me off track. How can I concentrate on naira and kobo when the aura of your feminine goodness permeates this forum? I may stutter and stammer, but I shall try to stay in topic once this palpitations in my heart subsides.

At Tayo. . .I have many objections to your analysis. For one, if the market was so easy to predict, even to the barest cent, then I would be a billionaire now. It is precisely because of the randomness and unpredictability of the market, it holds prime place in free market economics. The market is the epitome of Hayek's spontaneous order. It is this unpredictability that spawned the need for a safety net in response to the inevitable downturns that afflict the market.

As per politicians, don't hate the player hate the game. Democratic practices everywhere have their virtues, but they also possess some inherent flaws. That such behaviour exists relates systemic fault rather than derive from a priori parochial individual wantonness.

When I talk about the pyramids of derivatives, I mean the penchant of those greedy bankers to slice and dice these risky loans and spread them around the world. The government is culpable insofar as this practice was overlooked, but I cannot think of any legislation that encouraged this practice. It was this slicing and dicing and the lack of transparency in the distribution of these funds amongst the banks that caused the current intractable financial crisis(exacerbated by the decision to let Lehman fail).

That is market failure full stop. And with the prophecies of doom in the papers, I think it would be foolhardy to
ever put all our eggs in the market basket

YEAHY, rebub is back

anybody that takes tayo D or toshmann seriously or negro ntns or even kobojunkie (who has absconded the foreing affairs unit of nairaland since obama won the election) is either new, or cant learn well.

these are the same people who tendered all sorts of political assessments only to see the opposite on nov 4th.

what is tayo D saying about conservatism? is this not the same dude who backed hillary against obama in the democratic primary? what has a conservative got to do with a democrat like hillary(that witch)? immediately after the democratic primaries , tayo D and kobojunkie gave 5 million reasons why McCain is the right choice. what has McCain and hillary got in common that may explain an immediate support for old john after hillary lost to a better candidate. talk of political prostitution. their policy is anything against obama is good.

these people have no political ideology and should be banned from making political analysis.

hillary john mccain

pro choice pro life
pro tax tax cuts
bigger govt less govt
anti death penalty pro death penalty?
universal healthcare privatised healthcare

how different could 2 politicians be? yet tayo D and kobojunkie jumped from hillary to mccain in less than 24hrs. are these the type of pundits that we should listen to in nairaland?

tayo D says africans are conservative in nature. hmmn, what do u mean? conservatives in what sense? the american political conservative or what. i dont know about ur own part of africa mr tayo D, but in my own africa, we are our brothers keeper. we work hard but we know sometimes people have hard luck and need help. we have extended family system. and when people are weak they get help. that seems like welfarism. seems like what the democrat party offers.

and though the democrat party tolerates gays, etc . . .i believe why the party attracts africa americans is b/c the party is a ''welcoming'' party. it accepts u whatever u are. and that looks like what the original US was, a nation that accepts all sorts of people and offers them opportunity. no wonder it is the oldest party in the world.

tayo d, find another excuse.

hey mr pres-elect wetin i do you? i never supported hillary or any democrat for that matter. get ur facts right.

doyin13:
But what principles Tayo? What are these principles that tie you to the Republican party ?

Conservatism, economic conservatism at least has been totally discredited. That it took this long for its adherents to see the light is what baffles me.
Governments simply cannot get smaller. It is impossible. Spending only goes one way, and that is up. The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is where this spending should go. All that claptrap about letting the individual spend their tax dollars. . . .hogwash.

And it is this value system that prevented the Republican government from attacking the root cause of the economic crisis. It is a lot more acceptable to bailout banks than it is to bailout homeowners who took out bad loans. It would be unfair to the many who took out good loans they said. It is un-American bla bla bla. Well, 1.6 trillion dollars later, I bet they wished they had spent few hundred billions that might have staved off this disaster.

It is no use enunciating principles that simply do not have any bearing in reality. ''Small government'' is a fallacy, and I was pleasantly shocked when prominent Fox newsanchor and ''low key voice for conservatism'' Britt Hume suggested as much. ''We keep harping on about small government'' he said, ''but from Reagan down to the Second Bush, our governments have gotten bigger not smaller. . .''

I can tell from your postings, you detest the idea of helping lazy black folks who live on handouts. From your argument, you suggest blacks support the Democrats because of the handouts they are drip fed. But the thing is, the black folks who live on handouts are the least likely to vote. They are the least politically active. It is the tax paying black folks who provide active and not simply vocal support for the Democratic party. So it is a bit patronising to suggest blacks only support the Democrats because of the handouts they are given or promised by the Democratic party.

Going with David's comments, the Republican party has become a party of the anti-intellectual, gun toting, trilby hat wearing, nascar racing folks. What might have been a neurotic perception rife amongst the black community about the Republican party has become the reality. Whether it is a self fulfilling prophecy is besides the point. It is this reality that prevents still keeps the religiosity of the black community from finding a common ground with the more religious party in American politics. That is why, blacks vote en masse for Obama in California and reject Proposition whatever on the same token.

It all boils down to a question of identity Tayo. Principles are thrown out the window as identity trumps all. Especially when those principles derive from fantasies.

doyin13,

Nice one!

pres-elect:

tayo D says africans are conservative in nature. hmmn, what do u mean? conservatives in what sense? the american political conservative or what. i dont know about ur own part of africa mr tayo D, but in my own africa, we are our brothers keeper. we work hard but we know sometimes people have hard luck and need help. we have extended family system. and when people are weak they get help. that seems like welfarism. seems like what the democrat party offers.

and though the democrat party tolerates gays, etc . . .i believe why the party attracts africa americans is b/c the party is a ''welcoming'' party. it accepts u whatever u are. and that looks like what the original US was, a nation that accepts all sorts of people and offers them opportunity. no wonder it is the oldest party in the world.

tayo d, find another excuse.

Yes, I enjoyed this one.

@pres-elect,

Please help my memory here . Where or when have I ever acitvely supported Hillary? Where or when have I ever actively supported McCain? If anything, I have always said that McCain was the lesser of two evils when the choice was between him and Obama. I honestly wished McCain won, but that is only because I had to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. McCain was never my choice in the field of Republican candidates.

You must have switched my identity with someone else and I fiind it difficult to respond to your posts because your premise is totally flawed. Maybe when you inject some facts into your posts, I will begin to take it serioously!

@pres-elect,

how different could 2 politicians be? yet tayo D and kobojunkie jumped from hillary to mccain in less than 24hrs. are these the type of pundits that we should listen to in nairaland?

I thought I'll repond to the above just to clarify some issues that you may have missed in the last election. Are you aware that at some stage in the DNC primaries some Republicans jumped ship to vote for Hillary? Why did they do that? Was it because they supported Hillary? Your answer to the above will give me an idea where you may have missed road!

Are you aware that at some stage in the DNC primaries some Republicans jumped ship to vote for Hillary?

There's a one word answer to that - "Bill".

Electorates in democracies tend to be creatures of habit - be they Republican or Democrats there is always a tendency to maintain a sort of status-quo. Hillary's political reputation was associated with her husband and was therefore seen as a known quantity.

@Bastage,

There's a one word answer to that - "Bill".

Electorates in democracies tend to be creatures of habit - be they Republican or Democrats there is always a tendency to maintain a sort of status-quo. Hillary's political reputation was associated with her husband and was therefore seen as a known quantity.

Nope. I will wait to hear back from pres-elect before I provide the answer. Other contributions are welcome!

Heh!!! Don't keep me hanging guy.

However, I sincerely do believe that Republicans may have found Hillary more palatable because she was a known quantity.

Of course, it's possilbe that a lot jumped ship because the McCain/Palin ticket was about as far right wing as the GOP could produce but I kinda reckon you're gonna tell me I'm wrong there too.