NBC's Andrea Mitchell: Iowa is 'too white'

What's idiotic, is not looking at Iowa's voting trends.

Further more, half the country distrust media, according to Gallup poll.

So, I was right on both accounts, and you were wrong.

I would also suggest you learn what feigning outrage actually is, before embarrassing yourself in the future.

 

I suggest you focus on actual voting trends of the state of Iowa, it's the most logical thing you can do.

 

Not what you were asked, as the trends initiate via national attention on the first test of candidate strength coupled with strong media attention given to the winner of such a kick-off event. I say media because the effect is astounding if the timing is right. A candidate that received little press (and does well in Iowa) can suddenly shoot to the prime time "every half an hour" mention, creating a surge is public awareness. Why do you think states have lobbied to get the same sort of early vote? You were asked if the state inhabitants are an accurate face for a diverse nation.

 

What's idiotic is believing that voting trends equates to being a bell weather representation of the country as a whole and disregarding the glaring demographic differences in the sample you are selecting in order to present an opportunity to feign outrage.

What the hell does that have to do with anything at all?

A childish response from a childish point of view.

Your ignorance does not embarrass me.

 

Listen champ, you can track Iowa's voting trends back to thirty years, and every presidential candidate that has won Iowa has gone on to the oval office, with the exception of three cases, and one is where Gore won the popular vote, but still lost.

Those are called trends. Do you understand this concept? Let me break it down for you. If a state votes with the majority of the nation, that means there's some correlation in opinion.
Looking at the rest of your gibberish that you posted, I'm gonna guess you're still going to have a hard time grasping this concept.

Umm, it's called backing up my original assertion. Is English your first language?

So says the guy who comes of as a prick, when faced with a difference of opinion.

Really, maybe you should worry about your own ignorance, because it's on full display.

 

This thread isn't about Iowa's voting trends, it's about Andrea Mitchell pointing out that Iowa is not demographically aligned with the nation as a whole to be an actual representative sample of the position of the nation as a whole. Your presidential voting trends are irrelevant to that point. In fact, you probably know that, but can't justify the ridiculous claims of "racism" this thread was based on.

I'm sorry if you feel threatened and it comes off to you that I'm being a "prick" when poke holes in your lame arguments that don't hold water.

 

Without exploitatively pitting race/ethnicity "victims" against their "oppressors", the left's political platform would virtually disappear....

and they have the unmitigated gall to attach "racist" and "bigot" to everyone but themselves.

The last best chance to purge these despicable scumbags forever is this November....

Do your part.

 

Except its not racist to point out that Iowa is over 90% white demographicly...

 

To be representative of America, yes.

 

Her whole argument is wrong:

If Iowa is too white how the hell was Herman Cain leading in Iowa before he left the campaign? That's right, Herman Cain was leading.

 

Iowa is not representative, demographicly, of the nation as a whole. This was not a racially divisive comment. Get over it already.

 

I won't get over it and neither will the people of Iowa.

 

"The rap on Iowa: It doesn't represent the rest of the country, too white, too evangelical, too rural. Still here, politics are personal," Mitchell said on Sunday's broadcast on NBC's "Nightly News."

If Iowa is "too white", then maybe I should move there. Then maybe I could get hired to a civil service job, without affirmative action discriminating against me.

 

Who cares about the demographics of Iowa. Like Andrea Mitchell, you seem to be hung up on race and creed, when the end result is what matters. She seems to think the fact that the because the majority of Iowa is white, some how that makes them irrelevant national elections.

That's pure idiocy on her part, and yours as well for buying into that line of thought.

In the vast majority of elections, who Iowa votes for, so does most of the country. I mean for (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake, its not that hard to grasp.

Nevermind the fact that, the majority of the country is white, and the predominate religion is still Christianity.
So wow, you're wrong every account.

Good job.

 

Mitchell is a left wing Jewish journalist and left wing Jewish journalists hate white populations like their Jewish political counter parts.

 

Because you're too ignorant to realize this wasn't a racist or bigotted comment. Or too partisan.

 

70% over the past 10 presidential elections does not make them a bell weather, sorry. Regardless, her point was that they aren't representative, demographically, of the nation as a whole. Iowa is over 90% white. Andrew Mitchell was correct.

 

Except she said nothing to validate such claims.

 

iowa is too white, there is no diversity there they don't have a proper view of the world to pick a good candidate

 

Yet, leftist political correctness has deemed that it IS racist to point out that Detroit's 82% black demographic is "too black"....

that it IS racist to point out that Detroit's 82% "too black" demographic manages to commit 7 times the national average for murders...
3 times the national average for rapes...
4 times the national average for robberies...
5 times the national average for aggravated assault...
5 times the national average in auto thefts....

 

Now, you're just being dishonest.

Her point wasn't that the majority of Iowans are white. Her point was that since they had a majority of whites, or too white in her own words, they weren't some how representative of the national electorate.

And oh ya, name any other state that has a 100% accuracy in national elections. So 70%, is pretty much a bell weather state.

Logic eludes you once again.

 

The Republican party and Republican base is overwhelming white so why does it matter that Iowa is overwhelmingly white for a Republican primary?

 

Except she wasnt saying that Iowa is too white as if that was a negative conotation...as you are with Detroit. She was merely pointing out that it was not demographically representative of the country. Fail.

 

Her point was that Iowa does not demographically represent the rest of the country. She is right and there is nothing racist aboit what she said. No amount of contortions on yoir part will make what she said bigoted or racist.

 

Well they did pick your hero Barrack during the democratic caucus. Were they too white to pick a good candidate then too?