http://disqus.com/by/donmage/enThu, 20 Nov 2008 05:53:57 -0000http://www.southphillyreview.com/view_article.php?id=7762#comment-3910635<p>I don't classify all social minorities on the same level, although it seems most folk do.<br>A gender, by birth of course, social stratification is the same level as a racial (which of course, biologically disposed &amp; by birth) stratification, but sexual orientation is not of the same as gender or racial.<br>Apples &amp; potatoes; a different taxonomy altogether.<br>The scientific jury is still deliberating whether sexual orientation is genetic or societal or some other variable or natural constant. Most "uneducated" folk hate same-sex partners, and some "educated" folk tolerate them because for what ever reason or feeling, I sense, but I could be wrong though doubt it. ;)<br>Here's another consideration: historically &amp; politically, the so-called unelected voices (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, even MLK) of the black population notwithstanding, blacks GENERALLY are very conservative on social issues. Sit in on any loose group of blacks in any neighborhood in any city or suburb across this country and you will hear very conservative opinions on homosexuality, education, economics &amp; the justice system. If you could wear a blind fold and somehow you couldn't tell the accent one would be hard-told whether one is listening to a Republican meeting or a coffee-session in the basement of the local Baptist Church.<br>So, it is not surprising to me that is what was voted.<br>I think the raw voting data of the three states needs to be properly analyzed instead of that bandied about the internet and the general media. My understanding from some election-oriented statisticians is that those figures mentioned are wrong, but it makes for good grumbling and agitated conversating.<br>Consider this: in Philadelphia the ballot of 110408 had 4 considerations other than the persons being elected for this or that office. I am told, by some university election-oriented statgeeks, those other considerations (eg, Park Commission merging, bond raising) were not voted on by a goodly percentage, because they were separated on the right side.<br>If the California proposition(s) on the ballot, as an instance, were separated out from the party's under consideration is also quite likely that a goodly percentage of voters bypassed it compared to the number voting for office-holders.<br>My two Lincolns on this frenzied, and here poorly evidenced, topic, as is my jumbled English. :)</p>donmageThu, 20 Nov 2008 05:53:57 -0000http://www.southphillyreview.com/view_article.php?id=7747#comment-3910510<p>Priority One - Keep the Clintons from damaging a potentially positive-charged future Administration with their historically negative-charged hillbilly-in-tuxedo demeanor. One of the Clintons had their time (&amp; history increasingly proves his lackluster performance) and the other Clinton lost the popular-vote this go-around. As long as the Obamaens can keep all the Clinton-drama in-check the country, and the new Administration as elected steerfolk, can focus on Job One, which is,</p><p>Priority Two - The Economy, the Economy, the Economy, with a smattering of Education &amp; HealthCare.</p>donmageThu, 20 Nov 2008 05:27:25 -0000