| 0 |
Subject: Elecotral College 2008
Posted by: Wilmer McLean
- [42435124] Wed, May 14, 2008, 02:33
Here's a site that has up to date electoral college polls.
General Election Polls: Who Does Better Against McCain State by State?
Currently:
Obama 237 McCain 290 Ties 11
Clinton 280 McCain 241 Ties 17 |
| 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 32413148
Wed, May 14, 2008, 10:19
|
Jeez, why is McCain beating Obama only 47% to 38% in his home state?
I think it is interesting that Obama is doing about as well or better than Kerry in many of the red states. As a black man I don't think he'll carry any of those states but it is interesting that, this early, he's just about where Kerry ended up, with the exception of Washington State.
|
| 2 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 14, 2008, 10:32
|
Cool. I forgot about that site.
|
| 3 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 11:56
|
a black man I don't think he'll carry any of those states
How about: With his leglislative record and stance on issues his only chance to win those states is "as a black man" playing on identity voters who gave him the primary wins over Hillary in states his liberal politics give him no prayer of winning in November. If he was albino alabaster he wouldn't have a prayer in WV. Much closer to the truth.
The recent drumbeat of "If Obama loses it's only because of racism" is getting awful noisy. Too bad it's being overplayed now; it'll be played out by October.
Can we agree that:
1. The idiot who votes for Obama because he's black is just as Stoopid as the idiot who votes against him because he's black:
and
2. That Obama owes a lot more of his primary success to race based voting (SEE: MS, SC, NC, VA, GA, AL) than he does his failures (WV).
|
| 4 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:13
|
The recent drumbeat of "If Obama loses it's only because of racism" is getting awful noisy.
I've missed that one. The drumbeat I've seen is a reminder of a factor working against him that has been largely dismissed to date.
|
| 5 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:22
|
It is really obvious...West Virginia could not vote for a Black man walk - today.
a black man I don't think he'll carry any of those statesPD - today
"Fear of a Black Planet" tree - today.
geez - MITH - sorry you missed it. To what would you say that those two statements attribute Obama's lack of electoral success?
|
| 6 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:25
|
fear of a black planet, a muslim planet, whatever.
you watched the clip from west Virgina, right? ya know, the one where where the voter said she couldn't vote for Obama because he was a muslim...
...even when told he wasn't a muslim, she basically stood up, stomped her feet, and screamed "HE IS SO!!!"
|
| 7 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:36
|
Yeah, tree - she's ignorant. That doesn't make her representative. It also doesn't mean she woud have otherwise voted for a Lefty from Chicago.
|
| 8 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:39
|
To what would you say that those two statements attribute Obama's lack of electoral success?
Their points regarding lack of electoral success are not that racism is the only thing keeping Obama from the Presidency.
|
| 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 32413148
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:39
|
What we are seeing, MBJ, is a long continuum of efforts to paint Obama as unworthy of the office based upon race. Rev. Wright, for instance, wasn't a factor in some of the Southern states you mention, and has caused some white flight that we are seeing now.
I agree that voting based strictly on race is stupid. But we simply cannot wish it away--many people do, indeed, vote strictly on race, particularly in southern states (like it or not, that is what is going on). And in a general election, in which blacks make up a lower percentage of voters than in the Democratic primary, race based voting hurts Obama more than McCain.
|
| 10 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:42
|
I have the feeling that in November, freakin' Florida and Ohio will again decide the Electoral election. And again a bizarre screw -up in Florida (the State party cheating the voters of a primary voice - leading to Obama being the nominee)will cost the Dems in November.
|
| 11 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:49
|
PD - I don't disagree with much in post 9 (except for the Rev. Wright stuff - that was less about race and more about anti-Americanism); hwowever, what keeps getting glossed over in the effort to paint the opposition to Obama as gernerally racial, is the absolute fact that his success in the Southern states - the only reason that he's competive against Clinton, who has taken virtually every large Dem. state (except for IL), is attributabale to people voting FOR Obama for racial reasons.
As for the general election - I'll say it again, does anyone seriously think that if Obama were white that he'd carry Southern and blue collar voters over McCain? Please.
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 32413148
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:49
|
Heh. Yeah, it'll all come down to pandering, I think, with both candidates trying to out-NAFTA each other in Ohio.
I heard Obama is spending a little time in Michigan this week, to lay some groundwork for November.
|
| 13 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 12:57
|
This sad little piece by Ruben Naaratte is case in point
Whites who vote for Obama have overcome racism - them good. Whites who don't vote for Obama are because his policies are just making excuses for being closet Klansman - them bad.
|
| 14 | walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, May 14, 2008, 14:26
|
Hey MBJ, I don't agree with that summary though. I have a good friend who is a Hillary supporter, but not a Barack supporter, and his view is "experience." My mom feels the same way. I will not typecast them into those racial dichotomies unless they say so. I don't articulate that double standard. If some do, then that is wrong.
|
| 15 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 14, 2008, 14:38
|
MBJ
It also doesn't mean she woud have otherwise voted for a Lefty from Chicago.
Ummm... but didn't she vote for a lefty from Chicago?
John Scalzi Poor, rural, working-class white folks in Appalachia didn’t vote for the rich urban former law professor senator from Chicago. They went for the rich urban former law professor senator born in Chicago instead. But since the vote went so overwhelmingly in one direction rather than the other, and rich urban former law professor senators with Chicago ties are otherwise largely interchangeable, there has to be another controlling factor here. I can’t think what it might be, though. Maybe it will come to me if I think about it.
Oh, wait, I know now. Poor, rural, working-class white folks from Appalachia wanted to strike a blow for feminism. Well, way to go, West Virginia!
|
| 16 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 20:24
|
Heh. I think it's a comment on just how far removed Obama is from blue collar and conservative Dem voters that Hillary is able to campaign as a centrist candidate.
|
| 17 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 21, 2008, 18:28
|
Can we agree that:
2. That Obama owes a lot more of his primary success to race based voting (SEE: MS, SC, NC, VA, GA, AL) than he does his failures (WV).
I don't think we can:In the past few primaries, pollsters have spliced the numbers so we could see to what extent white voters said race was an important factor in their vote. Below, the first number is the percent of white voters who said race was important; the second number is Obama’s margin of victory or defeat:
Oregon: 7% -- Obama +16
North Carolina: 8% -- Obama +14
Indiana: 10% -- Obama -2
Kentucky: 18% -- Obama -35
West Virginia: 21% -- Obama -41
|
| 18 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Wed, May 21, 2008, 18:40
|
That Obama owes a lot more of his primary success to race based voting (SEE: MS, SC, NC, VA, GA, AL) than he does his failures (WV)
This argument forgets that generally, blacks vote as a block. It's not like suddenly, unlike previous elections where they are all over the place, they all line up to vote for the black candidate. They generally all line up and vote for someone. Just so happens, this time that someone is black.
|
| 19 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 21, 2008, 19:11
|
Agreed. What's interesting is that at the very beginning of this primary season, you might recall that Clinton was polling better among black primary voters in more places than not. Given that black voters did not immediately warm up to Obama, I think it would be hard to attempt a case that they support him solely because of his skin color.
|
| 20 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 21, 2008, 22:31
|
Feel free to show me the Dem. primary numbers over the past 20 years where blacks voted 90/10; what were Bill CLinton's numbers for black voters? Pretty high I'm guessing.
Obama doesn't stand a chance against a Clinton in the South with those black voters that won Southern delegates for him, but for his pigmentation.
|
| 21 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Wed, May 21, 2008, 23:21
|
I heard Obama is spending a little time in Michigan this week, to lay some groundwork for November. - PD
I would imagine is has to do with the issue of seating Mich delegates at the convention. Obama of course doesn't want them seated and doesn't want to pay for it among Mich voters.
|
| 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 154482114
Thu, May 22, 2008, 00:11
|
Maybe. I think there are many layers of things going on, so your explanation is as good as any (mine included). But I'm seeing Obama take a longer look at the election and starting to confront McCain more directly.
|
| 23 | Tree
ID: 38432225
Thu, May 22, 2008, 06:39
|
i hope that the folks in Michigan and Florida don't punish Obama for the decisions made by the DNC when it comes to the general election.
he just kept a promise made early on, and oddly, that actually seems to be hurting him.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|