July 18, 2013

Poll Watch: TheRun2016/cygnal (R) Iowa Republican Caucus Survey

TheRun2016/cygnal (R) Iowa GOP Caucus Poll

  • Marco Rubio 11.4%
  • Rand Paul 10.5%
  • Paul Ryan 9.3%
  • Jeb Bush 8.7%
  • Chris Christie 7.7%
  • Rick Santorum 6.7%
  • Ted Cruz 6.1%
  • Scott Walker 2.1%
  • Bobby Jindal 1.3%
  • Unsure 36.3%

Survey of 1,705 Iowa Republicans was conducted July 10-12, 2013. The margin of error is +/- 2.37 percentage points.  Political ideology: 41.9%Very conservative; 39.6% Somewhat conservative; 14.5% Independent; 2.8% Somewhat liberal; 1.2% Very liberal.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

by @ 12:10 pm. Filed under 2016, Iowa Caucuses, Poll Watch
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2013/07/18/poll-watch-therun2016cygnal-r-iowa-republican-caucus-survey/trackback/

57 Responses to “Poll Watch: TheRun2016/cygnal (R) Iowa Republican Caucus Survey”

  1. Rob Says:

    So strange for me to see a presidential poll and not have a horse in the race.

  2. rand cruz Says:

    Add Ted Cruz’s numbers to Rand Paul’s and the poll willbbe more accurate

  3. TennJoe Says:

    Hummm. Other polls have Rubio dropping to 4th place. If this poll is right, he still has a fighting chance to recover from the Immigration Bill, especially if the House gets to tighten the border security section and can limit citizenship to children of immigrants and just legal status for the adults.

  4. TennJoe Says:

    rand cruz,
    Add Ryan’s, Cristie’s , Bush’s and Walker’s numbers to Rubio (all support immigration reform), and the poll will be more accurate.

  5. Win M. Says:

    That’s what you call an open race.

  6. OHIO JOE Says:

    Mr. Walker does not support the current Senate immigration bill.

  7. Joe Says:

    3. He was actually 5th, but also on 11%. He’s staying where he is, it’s just the other candidates fluctuating around him.

  8. rand cruz Says:

    Rubio won’t survive the primary, Paul will take Iowa and south Carolina right out of the gates, . We don’t need any more statist republicans, its old hat now.

  9. mac Says:

    Speaking of someone who could win Iowa and SC…

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/17/2016_remains_an_option_for_reluctant_huckabee_119253.html

  10. Thomas Alan Says:

    he still has a fighting chance to recover from the Immigration Bill

    No one who willingly becomes the stooge of Chuck Schumer will recover to win the Republican nomination. Not with today’s GOP primary voters. Not with the solid field we’ll have in 2016.

    He could have recovered from breaking his word on immigration, but not doing the work of a snake like Schumer. Rubio completely blew his chance. Glad we found out that he’s a lightweight now.

  11. NorthCarolinaConservative Says:

    What?? 36% still undecided?? Make up your mind already, people!! It’s not like no one’s officially announced they were running yet!

  12. Pablo Says:

    “No one who willingly becomes the stooge of Chuck Schumer will recover to win the Republican nomination.”

    Sorry, but we heared incessantly in the last cycle that Mitt Romney´s campaign was doomed due to health care reform in MA. And yet Mitt Romney won. Now granted, he had no competition and Rubio will, but we should try to avoid declaring a figure like Rubio out of contention. It´s fine if you want to say Rick Santorum has no chance, but Rubio has a very good chance, or at least as good of a chance as any other.

  13. SteveT Says:

    I would not count out Rubio. If Jeb does not run he will almost certainty be in and draw support from across the primary electorate.

    Very few voters have immigration as their top issue. Rubio, Christie and Paul could make a very interesting primary.

  14. Fredo Says:

    Just to repeat my comment from other thread this morning:

    Can we get an FPP on the Politico story on Rubio going “wobbly?” In the early stages of this process, where the GOP pecking order is just beginning to sort itself out, it’s rare to see someone’s support move as much Rubio’s has these past few months. The story does a good job explaining why. Their bottom line is that the process exposed his ineffectiveness as an arm-twister (70% of GOP Sen caucus voted against him; and now he’s giving up on pressuring the House, after originally wanting to see the bill through to becoming law); and also his miscalculation as to political risk/reward.

    Neither of these cut to the core of his integrity or his mission as a conservative, IMO–I think he will recover in the long term. They do highlight his inexperience. He took a big leap biting off this issue in his 1st term. I guess b/c of Obama, everyone expects 1st term senators to become national party leaders. It doesn’t usually work like that. He has certainly been exposed in the short term as not ready to lead the party, IMO.

  15. Jonathan Says:

    Well I would say that Republicans are a little divided right now, and that’s alright. We’ve got plenty of time before any decision has to be made.

  16. Fredo Says:

    Can Ryan be a real threat in ’16? He hasn’t had to take the heat as the guy in charge–the one not just proposing an agenda, but bringing it to fruition. I just don’t see him being the first sitting Congressman in 130 years to win the WH, despite his many virtues.

    I would like to see him run for statewide office in WI and be a plausible candidate in future cycles.

  17. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    I really, really like Paul Ryan.

    Also I want to take this moment to brag about how I was one of the only people on this site who predicted he would be the selection well in advance of it actually happening.

    But back to the point – he is such a great communicator, so intelligent, and earnest. But I don’t see him running or actually winning. I’d love to see it though.

  18. EW Says:

    17 – How do you reconcile all his bad votes (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, TARP, all his votes to raise debt ceiling)? Again, earlier this year, he voted for No Budget No Pay that suspended the debt ceiling for like four months, which raised the ceiling by over $300 billion. All it did was force the Senate to pass a budget. He’s a great communicator but I just don’t see him backing up his words with his votes.

  19. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    18

    Well there’s no doubt that he has an element of “go along to get along” when it comes to appeasing GOP leadership. He’s not perfect, but he clearly understands the debt problem and economic issues and can explain them to the uneducated public in a reasonable compelling way. I don’t think he has a resolute enough personality to really be a good president, at least yet, but I really like what he’s been up to these last 4 years in the House and he did a great job as a VP candidate.

  20. Thomas Alan Says:

    Sorry, but we heared incessantly in the last cycle that Mitt Romney´s campaign was doomed due to health care reform in MA.

    None of those people were me.

  21. James Madison Says:

    Just an FYI for everyone here, Rubio, Ryan and Cruz are not running in 2016. Christie will be running but not in Iowa.

    Iowa will come down to Rand and Bush, the third wheel will be Santorum.

    Walker is the wildcard, he is the only other good candidate out there besides Rand.

  22. Thomas Alan Says:

    What indication is there that Rubio and Cruz aren’t running? They’ve both been rather obvious about it.

  23. James Madison Says:

    Rubio not running becasue Jeb Bush is. Cruz not running becasue Rick Perry is.

    Incidentally, Rubio and Cruz are not eligible to run, Rubio was born of illegal aliens from Cuba, and hence is a natural born Cuban. Cruz was born in Canada from a Canadian and is a natural born Canadian.

    This is called birther-biteback.

  24. Enrique Says:

    Paul Ryan disappointed me in the debate with Biden.

    Now maybe Romney’s team told him to be conservative (small c) so as not to make any mistakes.

    He could have embarassed Biden.

    “Joe, please forgive me, but are you drunk?”

    At the very least, one line like that would have been nice. It may have rivaled Bentson’s historic attack on Quayle.

    Paul Ryan seems way too polite and weak. And a talking points wonder.

  25. Enrique Says:

    Mass Con,

    I remember that. Nice call.

  26. Thomas Alan Says:

    Rubio not running becasue Jeb Bush is. Cruz not running becasue Rick Perry is.

    I’m fairly sure Cruz doesn’t care a wit about what Perry does. No way Cruz bows out to a pure vanity candidacy that’s going nowhere.

    There may be something to Rubio and Bush. But I’m not sure why they’re mutually exclusive.

  27. Enrique Says:

    I respect Charles Barkley A LOT for saying this:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/18/charles_barkley_on_zimmerman_trial_i_agree_with_the_verdict.html

    This is true evidence of character and integrity.

    I respect people a lot who don’t give a damn whether they are popular among a certain group, but just call it like it is, with honesty, character, and integrity.

    I respect Charles Barkley.

  28. mac Says:

    21.
    I agree that Bush is likely to run and Rubio likely will not. However, what, besides his last name, causes him to not be a good candidate in your mind? As Jonathan recently wrote, Jeb was a very solid to fantastic governor for two terms in Florida. Jeb is reasonably likeable, certainly compared to Hillary.

    I’ve lived in the Tampa Bay area since ’99 and can tell you that Floridians know, and the rest of the country would soon learn, that Jeb is not at all like his older brother.

  29. OHIO JOE Says:

    “Incidentally, Rubio and Cruz are not eligible to run” Bring out the birther brigrade.

  30. mac Says:

    27.
    Enrique,
    Do you have to shoot someone to stand your ground? For all TM knew, GZ could’ve been a John Wayne Gacey type freak looking to sodomize and butcher him. Per stand your ground, if someone approaches, and you feel your life is being threatened, you can defend yourself. But do you have to use a gun? What if, like TM, you’re unarmed? Per SYG, you don’t have to run, you can defend yourself and it appears that is what what TM did.

    I think GZ had the right to approach TM, but in so doing, he assumed tremendous risk, responsibility and liability. GZ did not see TM commit a crime or flee from the scene of a crime. He decided to approach what turned out to be an individual who had not committed a crime and, per SYG, TM lawfully defended himself.

    I think the prosecutors should’ve charged GZ with culpable negligence resulting in death as GZ most certainly is guilty of that charge, but I would’ve had no problem with manslaughter. GZ made some faulty assumptions that cost a young life and he needs to pay a price for that.

  31. Fredo Says:

    18. EW

    You raise a really interesting question here. I don’t for a minute think Ryan is a closet moderate. Here’s my $0.02: Congressmen work in a majority rule body, and as a result, votes get traded. You stick with leadership so that your ideas get a hearing from leadership. That bargain resulted in Ryan’s budget ideas being co-opted as the party’s ideas.

    Being a legislator makes it difficult to run for President, precisely b/c people don’t want to hear about “the need to compromise to get things done,” even though that’s the reality of an community of legislators, each with their own parochial self-interest (unless you get a wave election and strong majorities).

    It’s why Obama benefited from his short stay in the Senate where he was still a Rorschach test, and not easily pinned down on his voting history. Cruz may benefit similarly in this cycle.

  32. Enrique Says:

    Mac,

    Have you ever had your head pounded into concrete pavement?

    Have you ever been on the receiving end of MMA “ground-and-pound” style?

    Yeah, I didn’t think so.

    It wasn’t stand your ground, it was save your life.

  33. Thomas Alan Says:

    Do you have to shoot someone to stand your ground? For all TM knew, GZ could’ve been a John Wayne Gacey type freak looking to sodomize and butcher him. Per stand your ground, if someone approaches, and you feel your life is being threatened, you can defend yourself. But do you have to use a gun? What if, like TM, you’re unarmed? Per SYG, you don’t have to run, you can defend yourself and it appears that is what what TM did.

    Martin’s actions would put him well out of the “reasonable” category of self-defense. You can’t use deadly force because someone is slowly walking around the area you just left.

    I think GZ had the right to approach TM, but in so doing, he assumed tremendous risk, responsibility and liability. GZ did not see TM commit a crime or flee from the scene of a crime. He decided to approach what turned out to be an individual who had not committed a crime and, per SYG, TM lawfully defended himself.

    I find it unlikely that Zimmerman approached Martin.

    I think the prosecutors should’ve charged GZ with culpable negligence resulting in death as GZ most certainly is guilty of that charge, but I would’ve had no problem with manslaughter. GZ made some faulty assumptions that cost a young life and he needs to pay a price for that.

    What did Zimmerman actually do that was criminally negligent? He left his vehicle and was wandering around the area. That is not criminally negligent behavior. It’s actually fairly normal behavior. Zimmerman’s not guilty of anything criminal. And we should stop acting like what he did was just monumentally bad judgement in order to appease the “both sides are equally at fault” gods. It was modestly bad judgement, and only because there was a small chance he was putting himself in danger.

    Martin’s dead because he decided to attack Zimmerman. Your “stand your ground” defense for him would be laughed out of court.

  34. Enrique Says:

    “Martin’s dead because he decided to attack Zimmerman.”

    Exactly right. It’s really not even debatable.

  35. Enrique Says:

    It’s amazing how many idiots (even so-called republicans) just sop up the mainstream media bullshit.

  36. Guy Says:

    44. I mean, we only have Zimmerman’s word on what happened. I agree that if he was being beaten to death, he had the right to shoot Martin, even though Martin wasn’t an MMA fighter, or particularly large (158lbs). But come on. You can’t blame people for thinking that a guy who left his car against the dispatcher’s advice to peruse a kid who was doing nothing wrong with a loaded gun he wasn’t supposed to have decided not to confront the “punk” and started minding his own business when he was jumped by a kid without a criminal record or a history of violence for no apparent reason. Zimmerman killed the only other person who could testify to what happened that night. That’s why people are upset. Because we’ll never get to hear Trayvon Martin’s side of the story.

  37. Guy Says:

    35. I mean, you’re sopping up the Zimmerman defense team’s bullshit, right?

  38. Guy Says:

    34. I guess I don’t understand how it’s not debatable? Then what was the trial about? Are we just taking criminals at their word now? “Yes, I went into the bank with a loaded gun, but I changed my mind and went back to my car. While I was walking back a BUNCH of money fell into my hands.” “But all those people inside were shot!” “Oh, that was in self defense. I was pretty scared,”

  39. Thomas Alan Says:

    I guess I don’t understand how it’s not debatable? Then what was the trial about? Are we just taking criminals at their word now?

    The trial was about politics. The people originally in charge of the case didn’t want to pursue it because they could not contradict Zimmerman’s story. The evidence generally backed up Zimmerman’s account. Particularly the forensic evidence that Martin was on top at the time of the shooting and the injuries to Zimmerman.

    People lost their jobs or were demoted for not going forward with this farce of a trial.

    You can’t blame people for thinking that a guy who left his car against the dispatcher’s advice

    Factually incorrect. He had already left the vehicle when the dispatcher gave him that advice.

    to peruse a kid who was doing nothing wrong with a loaded gun he wasn’t supposed to have

    All sources I’ve seen say Zimmerman was licensed to carry a gun.

    decided not to confront the “punk” and started minding his own business when he was jumped by a kid without a criminal record or a history of violence for no apparent reason.

    Martin’s own text messages show that he’d been in fights in the recent past.

    I mean, you’re sopping up the Zimmerman defense team’s bullshit, right?,

    Their version of events fit with the facts of the case and Zimmerman’s mindset moments before the physical confrontation. Listen to the call to the police. He is not in an agitated state. People like to point to the “****ing punks” and “***holes” statements as if he were in a rage. Listen to the 911 call though. It completely disarms the notion that Zimmerman was looking for trouble.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trayvon_Martin_Shooting_Call1.ogg

  40. Enrique Says:

    Guy,

    You must not have seen the photo of Zimmerman’s face gashed with blood and a broken nose with blood all over his face. Jackass.

  41. Enrique Says:

    There’s a difference between sopping up facts and sopping up liberal media bullshit.

  42. Guy Says:

    I have seen the Zimmerman “broken nose” picture. I believe there was some debate about whether his nose was really broken, or if his injuries were particularly serious, or if Martin had caused them at all. My point is that this was a very ugly case. Nothing, including the result of the trial, proves Zimmerman innocent of all wrongdoing or Trayvon guilty of any wrongdoing. The jury did not find enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter or murder, because under Florida law they must prove malice was involved in the killing. Calling people idiots and jackasses for not taking the defense’s account of events at face value is beyond uncivil. This case brings up a lot of emotions for people. Racially motivated killings are not ancient history in this country, and while Zimmerman may not have been a bigot, it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t profile Martin. That doesn’t mean he should have been beaten to death. His possible stereotyping does make a lot of people angry, though, especially when it lead to the death of an unarmed minor who by all accounts was minding his own business prior to the confrontation. The fact that his defense rested on the believability of a black kid beating a stranger to death without provocation despite said black kid’s history of violence (I believe the text you are refering to was a joke about how he lost a fight) makes people all the more upset. Just because you don’t see any racial bias in either the incident in question or the subsequent trial does not make those that do jackasses or idiots or zombies of the lamestream media. I will never be convinced that Trayvon needed to get a bullet in his heart that night, and frankly, I don’t think highly of those that seem so sure he did.

  43. Enrique Says:

    Guy,

    Yep, I’m sure if you were getting grounded-and-pounded and having your face and head bashed into the concrete, you would have taken the much more reasonable position of just allowing your beating to continue until you possibly died.

    You’re so reasonable. You’re so reasonable that you will take an ass whooping…and…do…nothing…nothing but keep getting your ass whooped.

  44. Thomas Alan Says:

    I have seen the Zimmerman “broken nose” picture. I believe there was some debate about whether his nose was really broken, or if his injuries were particularly serious, or if Martin had caused them at all.

    What else could have caused them? Both injuries perfectly fit Zimmerman’s contention that he was punched in the face and then straddled and had his head hit against the sidewalk.

    My point is that this was a very ugly case.

    Actually, it’s unusually clean for a self-defense case.

    Racially motivated killings are not ancient history in this country

    Actually, for the most part they are. And there’s no evidence whatsoever that this was a race motivated killing.

    and while Zimmerman may not have been a bigot, it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t profile Martin.

    Seems he was actually profiling his behavior. That was certainly the first thing he mentioned when calling the police. He wasn’t even sure about the race of Martin when the operator first asked.

    People have called the police on me or confronted me for walking through a neighborhood before. I’m white. These things happen.

    who by all accounts was minding his own business prior to the confrontation.

    Very unlikely.

    (I believe the text you are refering to was a joke about how he lost a fight)

    No, it was bragging that he won.

    he fact that his defense rested on the believability of a black kid beating a stranger to death without provocation

    I find it very easy to believe that Martin took offense to Zimmerman and decided to teach him a lesson. That would be the provocation.

  45. mac Says:

    It’s fairly clear that Zimmerman made the decision to approach Martin and it isn’t a stretch to believe that having a stranger approach you on a dark rainy night could cause a well founded fear. We don’t know for certian if Martin tried to flee, which would’ve been a perfectly reasonable response. The fight occurred because Zimmerman made the decision to approach/pursue Martin, something he likely wouldn’t have done without his gun, so he is culpable. Zimmerman will face and likely lose a wrongful death lawsuit and is fortunate that he’s not facing prison time. Zimmerman confronted Martin, who had no knowledge that Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch leader. How could Martin have known that Zimmerman wasn’t planning to hurt him?

    If Martin had been white or hispanic, we’d likely never have heard of this case, to that extent, I agree with Thomas Alan. However, if Martin were white or Hispanic I’m fairly certain that Zimmerman would’ve at least been found guilty of manslaughter.

  46. Thomas Alan Says:

    It’s fairly clear that Zimmerman made the decision to approach Martin

    No it’s not. It’s clear that Zimmerman did not know where Martin was at the end of the phone call. How could he approach a person when he didn’t know where they were?

    We don’t know for certian if Martin tried to flee, which would’ve been a perfectly reasonable response.

    We know for certain that Martin did not try to flee because, otherwise, he would have gotten more than 100 feet away in the two minutes Zimmerman was talking on the phone.

    something he likely wouldn’t have done without his gun, so he is culpable.

    Speculation and irrelevant.

    Zimmerman will face and likely lose a wrongful death lawsuit

    He might, but he shouldn’t. He’s got a better case for suing Martin’s estate.

    Zimmerman confronted Martin

    Are you under the impression that if you keep repeating this statement over and over it will magically become real?

    who had no knowledge that Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch leader. How could Martin have known that Zimmerman wasn’t planning to hurt him?

    This is quite unlikely. Martin’s behavior is not of a person acting in fear. If he were afraid, he would have gone to his destination and been safe before Zimmerman ever finished the call. That he hung around out of sight makes it very unlikely he was worried about what Zimmerman was going to do to him.

    If Martin had been white or hispanic, we’d likely never have heard of this case, to that extent, I agree with Thomas Alan. However, if Martin were white or Hispanic I’m fairly certain that Zimmerman would’ve at least been found guilty of manslaughter.

    Once again, speculation. Extreme speculation in this case. In all likelihood, there would have been no trial if not for the the media storm.

  47. Enrique Says:

    Guy and Mac,

    You are being summarily embarrassed. You would be wise to just shut up.

  48. Enrique Says:

    There are thousands of murders in this country without any self-defense component.

    Ask yourself, why aren’t those cases given national attention.

    The answer is clear. Because democrats need the races to hate each other to get 95% of the black vote.

  49. Enrique Says:

    It’s really that simple.

  50. Guy Says:

    49. Wait, Democrats want the races to hate each other? 60% of Democrats are white. Why would they want to alienate 60% of their party to increase their hold on a demographic that makes up about 22% of their party, especially when they have 95% of said demographic? Building enmity between blacks and whites could not possibly help the Democrats. Wouldn’t racial strife favor a party that is more, say, monochromatic? Assuming that stoking bigotry is a viable political strategy, of course.

  51. Enrique Says:

    Because a whole lot of guilty white liberals can’t wait to declare themselves non-racists. They are the weakest and the most insecure of all.

  52. Thomas Alan Says:

    50:

    Democrats, in their arrogance, think they can racially polarize all the country EXCEPT whites. It’s not going to work that way. Obama and his allies are setting in motion the gears of nasty racial animus.

    Obama was wrong. Her girls are not growing up in a more racially cooler world. It’s getting worse, not better. Their father is fomenting the next huge racial divide.

  53. Enrique Says:

    Just listen to Rachel Jentel speak. Black people in the 50s didn’t talk like that.

    Black people (black culture) in the 50s were tons more civilized than modern black people (modern black culture).

    Ugh.

  54. Aspire Says:

    About the Zimmerman trial… people have been saying that Zimmerman’s injuries were minor. Well they weren’t. Zimmerman had 2 lacerations on the back of his head. Lacerations are not cuts. They are from blunt trauma and involve the skin tearing. It’s not easy to tear skin, otherwise we’d get lacerations all the time.

    Personally I’ve had a scull fracture (and was knocked out) from my head directly hitting a brick wall (then the cement) and I got exactly zero lacerations. My nephew hit his head on a pole (knocking himself out) and didn’t get a laceration. So when we hear that Zimmerman had 2 lacerations, we should be thinking that he was beaten very, very badly.

    People also wonder why he didn’t get stitches right away if it was a bad injury (I understand the paramedic told he could go later for stitches but he didn’t). Well when you have a injury to your head you don’t have to get stitches right away – it can wait a couple of days. I don’t know why that is (I have some guesses), but that’s what I was told when we were being taught how to suture.

    Stitches are also more for cosmetic purposes than anything, so incisions or cuts will get stitches if they’re deep at all, but lacerations may not get stitches because doing so won’t prevent scaring.

    So this idea that stitches means the wound was worse is wrong, and should be expelled from people’s minds.

    We also know from the medical evidence that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. If you put that with the 911 phone records, then we know that either Martin was on top of Zimmerman crying for help (after badly beating Zimmerman), or Zimmerman was on bottom crying for help (after being badly beaten).

    Even if you buy into the idea that Martin was scared, and thus had a right to attack Zimmerman, you should feel very uncomfortable with the idea that Martin had the right to mount Zimmerman then badly beat him for an extended period. That includes at least 40 seconds caught on a 911 call where Zimmerman was crying like a girl for help.

  55. Aspire Says:

    Has anyone put together a good and unbiased rundown of what is in this immigration bill Rubio supports. I don’t like what I’ve been hearing, but I need to know more to really form an opinion, and I don’t feel like I have time to figure it all out myself.

  56. Guy Says:

    “Because a whole lot of guilty white liberals can’t wait to declare themselves non-racists. They are the weakest and the most insecure of all.”
    You are talking about tens of millions of white Americans. But taking you at your word, these tens of millions of weak, insecure, guilty white liberals who can’t wait to declare themselves not racists … are trying to get black people to hate white people so they… vote for Democrats?

    “Black people (black culture) in the 50s were tons more civilized than modern black people (modern black culture).

    Ugh.”

    I take it you are not in a hurry to declare yourself non-racist

  57. Enrique Says:

    It is not racist to carefully point out and compare the difference between black culture at one period of time vs. black culture at another period of time.

    If you think the music industry has done the black culture any favors, well, you’re the racist.

    Clearly I care about the black culture more than you.

    You would be just fine with all black people talking like Rachel Jentel.

    You’re the racist, jackass.

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main