FTN wrote:I see 30 commercials for Sununu here every day for some reason.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'd add John Sununu and Norm Coleman to your potential list.

Of the three, I'd rate their chances of winning Coleman (35%), Smith (25%), Sununu (20%).

Sununu is smart as hell, but probably the most conservative of the three. He's far from a right wing nut though. Coleman and Smith are both decent senators, and are both among the more moderate members of the GOP caucus. Smith is especially moderate this year, as he keeps talking about Obama in his commercials.

dajafi wrote:America under President Obama: a view from the Christian Right

They also could have called this "Gays Gone Wild." It really is more than a little suspicious how hung up these fundies are on the Inverted Fraternity...

jerseyhoya wrote:

FTN wrote:I see 30 commercials for Sununu here every day for some reason.

New Hampshire is mostly located within the Boston media market.

jerseyhoya wrote:I like Norm Coleman. I think we've had this argument before. The guy has a 73 ACU rating lifetime, which is pretty moderate. He's certainly not a member of the radical right at all. I really don't get what makes him so repugnant to you.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:America under President Obama: a view from the Christian Right

They also could have called this "Gays Gone Wild." It really is more than a little suspicious how hung up these fundies are on the Inverted Fraternity...

So, I guess lying is moral now. Why not make a real case, instead of some hilarious trumped up fantasy? For one, Obama is at most going to get to replace two liberal justicies. Scalia is pretty spry at 72, as is Kennedy. I think Clarence Thomas is the next oldest justice.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:America under President Obama: a view from the Christian Right

They also could have called this "Gays Gone Wild." It really is more than a little suspicious how hung up these fundies are on the Inverted Fraternity...

So, I guess lying is moral now. Why not make a real case, instead of some hilarious trumped up fantasy? For one, Obama is at most going to get to replace two liberal justicies. Scalia is pretty spry at 72, as is Kennedy. I think Clarence Thomas is the next oldest justice.

I’m sympathetic to Eskew and Wallace, and not just because they’re decent people. They’ve held their tongue from leaking what a couple of McCain higher-ups have told me—namely, that Palin simply knew nothing about national and international issues. Which meant, as one such adviser said to me: “Letting Sarah be Sarah may not be such a good thing.” It’s a grim binary choice, but apparently it came down to whether to make Palin look like a scripted robot or an unscripted ignoramus. I was told that Palin chafed at being defined by her discomfiting performances in the Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Sean Hannity interviews. She wanted to get back out there and do more. Well, if you’re Eskew and Wallace, what do you say to that? Your responsibility isn’t the care and feeding of Sarah Palin’s ego; it’s the furtherance of John McCain’s quest for the presidency.

On the other hand, it had to be hard for Sarah Palin—who has achieved all she’s achieved with a highly personal touch—to take all this ridicule under an enforced gag order. After being introduced to the world as one of the “Team of Mavericks,” she’s admonished not to be one. She’s being called out by some McCainites for not cleaving to all of the senator’s positions. The Republicans who fawned over her superstar looks are now shocked—shocked!—to learn that her much-admired wardrobe has been purchased with RNC funds. I’ve heard from one well-placed source that McCain has snubbed her on one long bus ride aboard the Straight Talk Express, to the embarrassment of those sitting nearby. It has surely been implied to the governor that she should be eternally grateful to have been plucked from obscurity. And yet the high water mark of John McCain’s campaign for the presidency unquestionably began on September 3, when Palin gave her nomination speech—and ended precisely twelve days later, when McCain went off-script—I have that on the authority of the person who participated in the writing of said script—and told an audience that he still believed the fundamentals of the economy were strong.

Obama is outperforming any Democrat back to Jimmy Carter among white voters, getting 45 percent to McCain's 52 percent. But in the South, it is a very different story. Obama fares worse among Southern whites than any Democrat since George McGovern in 1972.

Whites in the East and West tilt narrowly toward Obama (he's up 8 and 7 points, respectively), and the two run about evenly among those in the Midwest. By contrast, Southern whites break more than 2 to 1 for McCain, 65 percent to 32 percent.

That stark divide is not simply a partisan difference. While white Democrats outside the South give Obama margins of 80 points or more, he leads by a more modest 65 points among white Southern Democrats. The Democrat is up 55 points among liberal whites in the region, far under his performance among those voters elsewhere, where he is up by 79 points.

Southern white independents are also far more likely than politically independent whites in other regions to support McCain: They break 62 to 33 percent in his favor. White independents in the West favor Obama by a similarly wide margin, 63 to 34 percent. White political independents in the East and Midwest divide much more evenly.

dajafi wrote:Interesting breakdown of polling numbers around the question of Obama and white voters:

Obama is outperforming any Democrat back to Jimmy Carter among white voters, getting 45 percent to McCain's 52 percent. But in the South, it is a very different story. Obama fares worse among Southern whites than any Democrat since George McGovern in 1972.

Whites in the East and West tilt narrowly toward Obama (he's up 8 and 7 points, respectively), and the two run about evenly among those in the Midwest. By contrast, Southern whites break more than 2 to 1 for McCain, 65 percent to 32 percent.

That stark divide is not simply a partisan difference. While white Democrats outside the South give Obama margins of 80 points or more, he leads by a more modest 65 points among white Southern Democrats. The Democrat is up 55 points among liberal whites in the region, far under his performance among those voters elsewhere, where he is up by 79 points.

Southern white independents are also far more likely than politically independent whites in other regions to support McCain: They break 62 to 33 percent in his favor. White independents in the West favor Obama by a similarly wide margin, 63 to 34 percent. White political independents in the East and Midwest divide much more evenly.

Real America, my friends.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Interesting breakdown of polling numbers around the question of Obama and white voters:

Obama is outperforming any Democrat back to Jimmy Carter among white voters, getting 45 percent to McCain's 52 percent. But in the South, it is a very different story. Obama fares worse among Southern whites than any Democrat since George McGovern in 1972.

Whites in the East and West tilt narrowly toward Obama (he's up 8 and 7 points, respectively), and the two run about evenly among those in the Midwest. By contrast, Southern whites break more than 2 to 1 for McCain, 65 percent to 32 percent.

That stark divide is not simply a partisan difference. While white Democrats outside the South give Obama margins of 80 points or more, he leads by a more modest 65 points among white Southern Democrats. The Democrat is up 55 points among liberal whites in the region, far under his performance among those voters elsewhere, where he is up by 79 points.

Southern white independents are also far more likely than politically independent whites in other regions to support McCain: They break 62 to 33 percent in his favor. White independents in the West favor Obama by a similarly wide margin, 63 to 34 percent. White political independents in the East and Midwest divide much more evenly.

Real America, my friends.

Well, to be fair, Obama hasn't campaigned at all down here.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Interesting breakdown of polling numbers around the question of Obama and white voters:

Obama is outperforming any Democrat back to Jimmy Carter among white voters, getting 45 percent to McCain's 52 percent. But in the South, it is a very different story. Obama fares worse among Southern whites than any Democrat since George McGovern in 1972.

Whites in the East and West tilt narrowly toward Obama (he's up 8 and 7 points, respectively), and the two run about evenly among those in the Midwest. By contrast, Southern whites break more than 2 to 1 for McCain, 65 percent to 32 percent.

That stark divide is not simply a partisan difference. While white Democrats outside the South give Obama margins of 80 points or more, he leads by a more modest 65 points among white Southern Democrats. The Democrat is up 55 points among liberal whites in the region, far under his performance among those voters elsewhere, where he is up by 79 points.

Southern white independents are also far more likely than politically independent whites in other regions to support McCain: They break 62 to 33 percent in his favor. White independents in the West favor Obama by a similarly wide margin, 63 to 34 percent. White political independents in the East and Midwest divide much more evenly.

Real America, my friends.

Well, to be fair, Obama hasn't campaigned at all down here.

And I imagine white Democrats supported Bush more in the South than anywhere else, and Kerry and Gore didn't have black daddies.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Interesting breakdown of polling numbers around the question of Obama and white voters:

Obama is outperforming any Democrat back to Jimmy Carter among white voters, getting 45 percent to McCain's 52 percent. But in the South, it is a very different story. Obama fares worse among Southern whites than any Democrat since George McGovern in 1972.

Whites in the East and West tilt narrowly toward Obama (he's up 8 and 7 points, respectively), and the two run about evenly among those in the Midwest. By contrast, Southern whites break more than 2 to 1 for McCain, 65 percent to 32 percent.

That stark divide is not simply a partisan difference. While white Democrats outside the South give Obama margins of 80 points or more, he leads by a more modest 65 points among white Southern Democrats. The Democrat is up 55 points among liberal whites in the region, far under his performance among those voters elsewhere, where he is up by 79 points.

Southern white independents are also far more likely than politically independent whites in other regions to support McCain: They break 62 to 33 percent in his favor. White independents in the West favor Obama by a similarly wide margin, 63 to 34 percent. White political independents in the East and Midwest divide much more evenly.

Real America, my friends.

Well, to be fair, Obama hasn't campaigned at all down here.

And I imagine white Democrats supported Bush more in the South than anywhere else, and Kerry and Gore didn't have black daddies.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I like Norm Coleman. I think we've had this argument before. The guy has a 73 ACU rating lifetime, which is pretty moderate. He's certainly not a member of the radical right at all. I really don't get what makes him so repugnant to you.

This time, he's running a purely negative campaign against Franken--who certainly presents a target-rich environment--punctuated

dajafi wrote:Satan's conquest of Anthony Kennedy, turning him from mushy conservative into the leather-and-chaps clad, whip-wielding Grand Marshall of San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade.