Obama got more votes than McCain.

Oooh! I get to play with the BSG crayons!!! I'll take the states out of the quote box so we can see the pretty colors...

pacino wrote:keep waiting


States & elections won with 60% or more of the vote:

Barack Obama: 15 States + DC + VI
* Virgin Islands (89.9%) inconsequential (0 Electoral College votes)
* Idaho (79%) RED (4 EC votes)
* Hawaii (76%) BLUE (4), Obama's birth/childhood state
* Alaska (75%) RED (3)
* District of Columbia (75%) BLUE (3)
* Kansas (74%) RED (6)
* Washington (68%) BATTLEGROUND (11)
* Nebraska (68%) RED (5)
* Minnesota (67%) BLUE (10)
* Colorado (67%) RED (9)
* Georgia (67%) RED, aside from home boy Jimmy (15)
* Illinois (65%) BLUE since '92 (21), his home state
* Virginia (64%) RED (13)
* Maryland (62%) BATTLEGROUND (10)
* North Dakota (61%) RED (3)
* Wyoming (61%) RED (3)
* Mississippi (61%) RED (6)

10 diehard red states (67 EC votes), 3 blue (35 EC's), 2 battleground (21 EC's)

Hillary Clinton: 2 States
* Arkansas (70%) BATTLEGROUND (6), Bill's home
* West Virginia (67%) BATTLEGROUND (5)

2 battleground states, (11 EC's)



RED: gone red the last 10 presidential elections (40 years) regardless (unless otherwise noted).
BLUE: gone blue " " " "
BATTLEGROUND: have gone both ways (entendres thread, here I come) typically by percentages small enough to be "in play".

So, the above isn't really as impressive as it seems... just a 10 EC swing.

Oh, damn, might as well not even bother having an election in November if we already know what will happen

pacino wrote:That's really a red herring to what we're talking about, but I would say that what you highlighted shows that they're likely not all racist. i doubt a black person's entire thought process 'ooo skin', just like many whites don't thinkt hat way. many of them probably have racist thoughts though,and those influence their decisions, just like a large part of the white voters that responded.

All I'm saying is you're confusing racism (belief that one race is superior to another) with prejudice (bias). Everyone has prejudices of some kind (we're both prejudiced for the Phillies).

What I saw in your original "racism" comment is something that concerns and seriously troubles me... that if McCain beats Obama (or any big Obama defeat for that matter), a lot of Obama supporters will start crying "America is racist" as an excuse instead of swallowing the hard pill, that Obama's electability issue of being too liberal for middle America, or his inability to connect with middle America (the impression of "liberal elitist") was the most likely reason.

The DNC just doesn't learn. Fer cryin' out loud, the DNC hates the only Democrat to win the White House in the last 32 years. How @#$!'ed up is that? Their only prez candidate in 32 years to put together a winning strategy. If they blow this election, they shoud just pack it in and fold up the tents as they won't deserve to be considered a serious political party anymore.

dajafi wrote:Who knows what will happen, but I have a lot of trouble believing that the usual Republican effort to feminize and otherwise smear Obama will work well enough to balance the (substantially accurate) charge that McCain is running for "Bush's third term."

Or maybe they can set aside the feminizing and the "Bush third term" and actually run against each other based on their stances on the issues.

Phan In Phlorida wrote: If this area (and the blue collars and rurals in general) is up for play for McCain, the Democrats should be legitimately worried.

McCain has a big strike against him. Economically the blue collars favor the Democrats. McCain could emphasize his Pro-Life and Pro-Gun positions. This is one of the few groups of Democrats that lean that way. McCain's military service and experience will also be big with this group. For Obama to win this group he needs to focus on the wallet and how only the Dems really care about the working man. John Kerry got a lot of them to vote for him and he was perceived as a rich, liberal elitist.

Laexile wrote:

dajafi wrote:Who knows what will happen, but I have a lot of trouble believing that the usual Republican effort to feminize and otherwise smear Obama will work well enough to balance the (substantially accurate) charge that McCain is running for "Bush's third term."

Or maybe they can set aside the feminizing and the "Bush third term" and actually run against each other based on their stances on the issues.

If Camp McCain is smart, they (or some 527's) would paint Obama as being "too liberal for France". Middle America prefers moderate Dems, hates liberals.

Laexile wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote: If this area (and the blue collars and rurals in general) is up for play for McCain, the Democrats should be legitimately worried.

...

John Kerry got a lot of them to vote for him and he was perceived as a rich, liberal elitist.

But not enough of them. Dubya got enough of them.

Oh geez. According to some Obama advisor/campaign dude on the TV, Obama's electoral college strategy is to basically concede states like WV and FL to McCain and target 3 or 4 particular red states and a couple of particular "almost always red" swing states (CO, NV, NM).

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Oh geez. According to some Obama advisor/campaign dude on the TV, Obama's electoral college strategy is to basically concede states like WV and FL to McCain and target 3 or 4 particular red states and a couple of particular "almost always red" swing states (CO, NV, NM).

I get your 2nd sentence, but not your first.

Laexile wrote:

dajafi wrote:Who knows what will happen, but I have a lot of trouble believing that the usual Republican effort to feminize and otherwise smear Obama will work well enough to balance the (substantially accurate) charge that McCain is running for "Bush's third term."

Or maybe they can set aside the feminizing and the "Bush third term" and actually run against each other based on their stances on the issues.

I LITERALLY LOLED

GOOD ONE LA

NRCC Chairman Tom Cole's Statement on Special Election Results in Mississippi

Washington -- NRCC Chairman Tom Cole released the following statement following the results of the special election runoff in Mississippi's 1st Congressional District:

"We are disappointed in tonight's election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.

"Tonight's election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats' task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.

"Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.

"I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election."

We're going to get absolutely destroyed in November. Tom Cole isn't even spinning. At least the first step to solving a problem, admitting you have one, has been taken.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Laexile wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote: If this area (and the blue collars and rurals in general) is up for play for McCain, the Democrats should be legitimately worried.

...

John Kerry got a lot of them to vote for him and he was perceived as a rich, liberal elitist.

But not enough of them. Dubya got enough of them.

I guess you haven't heard that Obama is about where Kerry was with white voters four years ago. Of course, Obama does better with independents. And McCain will have the Bush albatross to struggle with.

I'm honestly not sure whether you're a TomatoPie-like "concern troll" (except that TP usually admits when he's doing it), or just a sort of self-hating Democrat who particularly detests "liberals."

What's a concern troll? And thanks for backing me up 8 pages or so ago when I basically said the same thing but looked like I was picking on poor pip. I thought once a TGP'er, always a TGP'er, but I guess not.

jeff2sf wrote:What's a concern troll? And thanks for backing me up 8 pages or so ago when I basically said the same thing but looked like I was picking on poor pip. I thought once a TGP'er, always a TGP'er, but I guess not.

Mea culpa. Sadly, there's a problem with my "I think jeff was right" autotext; the tech guy is coming today, supposedly.

Concern troll

In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally.

Meanwhile, more data from Quinnipiac on the "white voter problem":

There are some key numbers buried in the internals of today's Quinnipiac poll that go some way towards deflating Hillary's claim that she would outperform Obama against McCain among working class whites.

It finds that McCain beats both Hillary and Obama by an identical margin among working class (no college) white voters.

Among these voters, McCain beats Obama 46%-39%.

And McCain beats Hillary 48%-41%.

That's a seven point spread in both cases.

What's more, the poll also finds that both lose to McCain by an equal margin of seven points among whites overall.

dajafi wrote:I guess you haven't heard that Obama is about where Kerry was with white voters four years ago. Of course, Obama does better with independents. And McCain will have the Bush albatross to struggle with.

White people are independents too.

jerseyhoya wrote:

NRCC Chairman Tom Cole's Statement on Special Election Results in Mississippi

Washington -- NRCC Chairman Tom Cole released the following statement following the results of the special election runoff in Mississippi's 1st Congressional District:

"We are disappointed in tonight's election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.

"Tonight's election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats' task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.

"Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.

"I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election."

We're going to get absolutely destroyed in November. Tom Cole isn't even spinning. At least the first step to solving a problem, admitting you have one, has been taken.

Well, there is some spin in what Cole said, JerseyHoya. In the second paragraph, he talks about Democrats running as conservatives - while trying to join a liberal Democrat majority.

This is a continuation of the spin from the 2006 midterm elections in which the Republicans and their talk radio amen corner tried to argue that conservatism won the day - because some of the Democratic winners were moderates. Of course, Republicans never call any Democrat a moderate so the wins by Jim Webb, et al, were victories for conservatism, despite the fact that the less-conservative candidate won.

The Republicans have more than one problem, you see. Yes, they're in a real pickle with a huge swath of the electorate - they acknowledge that.

What they do not acknowledge - and may not be able to see - if that they are too tied in to their ideology. They push the "liberal Democrat" idea so hard because they want to frame every race as liberal vs. conservative. But the Democratic party - in large part, but admittedly not entirely - has thrown off a lot of its ideology.

This is what the Clinton presidency was about - and more people would understand that if the media had focused more on the policy and less on overblown and sometimes absolutely trivial scandals. The Clinton presidency was about moving the Democrats to a policy focused much more on pragmatism, and much less on ideology.

Meanwhile, Republicans still pick fights over whether a plan to help people in the mortgage market mess, or to address the New Orleans flooding aftermath, is a violation of "conservative principles." Even most Republicans don't give a flip about ideological rigor when their town is flooded or market fluctuations have left them with a loan worth 40 percent more than their home.

Until the Republicans can bring themselves to focus on what is right, rather than what is right-wing, they will continue to have these problems.

The electorate sent the Democrats a clear message in the '70s, '80s and '90s - put the nation's business ahead of ideology - and by and large the Democrats slowly got the message. Now, it is the Republicans' turn.

The other difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are far more willing to support moderates and even conservatives who can win in conservative districts than Republicans tolerate moderates. The ideologues on the Republican side would rather drive Specter out of the party than hold onto that seat.

By contrast, Democrats are by and large happy to have people like Mark Pryor in its party.

Laexile wrote:

traderdave wrote:

Laexile wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:So by your logic and definition, the above referenced 80% of the African American Democratic electorate is racist.

The term racist is thrown around liberally. Voting for someone based on the color of their skin, white or black, is a racist act. I think it's a leap to call them racists.

So the guys who flew the planes into the WTC committed terrorist acts but they were necessarily terrorists?

You're using hyperbole if you want to compare someone voting for someone because of the color of their skin and someone who causes the deaths of thousands to facilitate bringing down America.

My intention was not to compare the two; it was to position that I do not think the leap is a far one. I think we are talking about shades of gray here. Of the people who said that race was a factor do you think that it was a factor because those people simply do not like the color black or white?

TenuredVulture wrote:The other difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are far more willing to support moderates and even conservatives who can win in conservative districts than Republicans tolerate moderates. The ideologues on the Republican side would rather drive Specter out of the party than hold onto that seat.

By contrast, Democrats are by and large happy to have people like Mark Pryor in its party.

I don't know about that, especially after Joe Lieberman