Worst election analysis ever

[J. J.]

Pretty much anything J. J.'s posted in the last 12 months.

Possibly the most satisfying thing about the election was the ultimate repudiation of his annoying, consistently wrong, stubborn talking points.

That guy could spin anything.

No, possible not.  

The point has some traction in this regard, urban problems tend to be very specific to urban areas.  Mass transit is one such example.  In PA, it really doesn't exist outside of Philadelphia as a practical alternative (I would even argue not in Pittsburgh).  If the "urbanites" want to deal with it as a national issue, it is going to bring hostility if the "non-urbanites" are expected to pay for it.

A lot of the social issues are the same, but those cleavages have been there for decades.  We may start seeing it in other areas.  There is a difference between the mentality in a city and those of the non-city areas.

BTW, Izod, the same problems occur in Britain, and arguably has gotten worse over time.  The UK is slightly more urbanized.  

[J. J.]

Pretty much anything J. J.'s posted in the last 12 months.

Possibly the most satisfying thing about the election was the ultimate repudiation of his annoying, consistently wrong, stubborn talking points.

That guy could spin anything.

No, possible not.  

The point has some traction in this regard, urban problems tend to be very specific to urban areas.  Mass transit is one such example.  In PA, it really doesn't exist outside of Philadelphia as a practical alternative (I would even argue not in Pittsburgh).  If the "urbanites" want to deal with it as a national issue, it is going to bring hostility if the "non-urbanites" are expected to pay for it.

A lot of the social issues are the same, but those cleavages have been there for decades.  We may start seeing it in other areas.  There is a difference between the mentality in a city and those of the non-city areas.

BTW, Izod, the same problems occur in Britain, and arguably has gotten worse over time.  The UK is slightly more urbanized.  

That wasn't the point. Rather it was your absolutely horrid track record for your often beyond moronic predictions. See my sig.

That was a problem when I posted it.  Obama (and the faltering economy) solved that problem.

My point is that there can be a lot of cleavages that Palin (or some other candidate) can exploit.  One of them is running an anti-urban campaign. 

I should add that posts like this one are quite typical of the "elite, big city liberal" type of thing that someone could run against (fairly or not).

[J. J.]

That was a problem when I posted it.  Obama (and the faltering economy) solved that problem.

No, actually, when you posted that, Obama was creaming among white Democrats by a margin of at least 4-to-1.  You ignored this number repeatedly, while claiming that Palin could take up to half of white Democratic women or something.  Everyone else was telling you that you'd be painfully wrong.  You insisted.  You were painfully wrong.

My point is that there can be a lot of cleavages that Palin (or some other candidate) can exploit.

giggle.

One of them is running an anti-urban campaign. 

That seems to have caused suburban backlash this time, and contributed to Obama's strengths among a suburban population sympathetic to him.  Lame strategy.  Worked in 2004, didn't in 2008.  What's your point?

It worked in 2004, to some extent.  I've heard the same the same thing before, about how Reagan was out of it and great it would be for the Democrats if he'd be nominated the next time.  That was 1976.  Reagan didn't change; the country did.  

Now, will it in 2012?  Maybe.  I can see Palin's appeal in some circumstances.

I cautioned JSojourner not to count Obama out after the debate at Rick Warren's church; I'd caution you in the same way about Palin or even Huckabee.  (I think you know my feelings about Huckabee.)