Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 25, 2020, 12:20:26 am
News: 2020 Mock/Endorsements for Presidential Primaries are now open.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  November - McCain vs Obama
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: November - McCain vs Obama  (Read 12403 times)
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2008, 01:33:49 pm »

Yeah, but I am comparing SO Ill.'s contrast with the overall state result. Obama was able to get some of these counties within 5%, while Kerry did 10-15% worse than he did overall in the state.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,584


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2008, 03:39:00 pm »

Yeah, but I am comparing SO Ill.'s contrast with the overall state result. Obama was able to get some of these counties within 5%, while Kerry did 10-15% worse than he did overall in the state.

yeah, but...ALAN KEYES






(he's black, you know...)
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2008, 04:37:21 pm »

Obama is black. They could of just stayed home, instead of vote for Obama.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2008, 04:47:14 pm »

Obama is black. They could of just stayed home, instead of vote for Obama.

In a highly contested Presidential election year (with a couple of highly contested seats to add on)?  I don't think so.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2008, 05:40:54 pm »

So, they still probably voted. Thanks for proving my point.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2008, 05:47:55 pm »

So, they still probably voted. Thanks for proving my point.

Your point being?  They voted for a competent black man over a lunatic black man.  McCain is a lunatic black man?
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2008, 06:11:27 pm »

My point is that Barack appeals to some people that would otherwise vote conservative. Reagan won over many who would have voted for a Liberal, so just because you are ideologically strong doesn't make you ideologically limited...in some cases.
Logged
RRB
Full Member
***
Posts: 227


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2008, 09:39:46 pm »

Turnout will decide 2008.  McCain will be all done when paired with Bush and Bush administration policies. Wait until this summer comes around and the mud starts slinging.  McCain will do well with white males in areas where race/gender is a big deal.  I predict this year will have a very defining election in favor of the Dems and that's not just because I want them to win. 

Just wait until we are reminded of "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.  Expect ads like the '64 ad with the girl and the daisy with a mushroom cloud behind her.

McCain is not a bad man, but he will never survive in the current political climate.  The Dems either tie him or out poll him right now and he hasn't been attacted yet.  The Dems will be smeared too, but with the same old junk that won't do much more than make McCain voters happy.

Short of an Spitzer type scandle, I just don't see it happening for McCain.

However, mental note to all Dems.  Don't attact McCains character, or it will backfire.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2008, 09:45:00 pm »

I sent Obama a letter saying that when he is attacked by McCain, to just hold out the incident as what's wrong with the current body politic than attack McCain himself. Punish the sin but not the sinner.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,584


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2008, 06:38:15 am »

My point is that Barack appeals to some people that would otherwise vote conservative. Reagan won over many who would have voted for a Liberal, so just because you are ideologically strong doesn't make you ideologically limited...in some cases.

No...it's more a case of Keyes not appealing to some people who would otherwise vote conservative. It's like using 1964 to show how LBJ had tremendous appeal to conservatives in the north. Or even as an example of how popular GOldwater was in the South.

As for Reagan, he mostly managed to utilize an existing conservative majority to his advantage.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2008, 09:23:48 am »

My point is that Barack appeals to some people that would otherwise vote conservative. Reagan won over many who would have voted for a Liberal, so just because you are ideologically strong doesn't make you ideologically limited...in some cases.

No...it's more a case of Keyes not appealing to some people who would otherwise vote conservative. It's like using 1964 to show how LBJ had tremendous appeal to conservatives in the north. Or even as an example of how popular GOldwater was in the South.

As for Reagan, he mostly managed to utilize an existing conservative majority to his advantage.

...how did that 60% supermajority come and go?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,584


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2008, 06:40:43 pm »

My point is that Barack appeals to some people that would otherwise vote conservative. Reagan won over many who would have voted for a Liberal, so just because you are ideologically strong doesn't make you ideologically limited...in some cases.

No...it's more a case of Keyes not appealing to some people who would otherwise vote conservative. It's like using 1964 to show how LBJ had tremendous appeal to conservatives in the north. Or even as an example of how popular GOldwater was in the South.

As for Reagan, he mostly managed to utilize an existing conservative majority to his advantage.

...how did that 60% supermajority come and go?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I'm guessing it may be Reagan's almost 59% in 1984. I would say that there were in some respects a much more conservative electorate back then. There is a case to be made that there is a more liberal electorate now than in previous years but I'm not convinced that there is to the same degree. When Reagan came along the Republicans had a traditional strong base dominating the West and stretching through the Midwest into New England. He was able to add the entire South to that coalition. By that point the Democrats were really pretty screwed. If you look at 1988 you get an idea of what kind of results Democrats could get in those days, without Reagan on the ballot. Things changed after that, of course.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2008, 07:34:35 pm »

My point is that Barack appeals to some people that would otherwise vote conservative. Reagan won over many who would have voted for a Liberal, so just because you are ideologically strong doesn't make you ideologically limited...in some cases.

No...it's more a case of Keyes not appealing to some people who would otherwise vote conservative. It's like using 1964 to show how LBJ had tremendous appeal to conservatives in the north. Or even as an example of how popular GOldwater was in the South.

As for Reagan, he mostly managed to utilize an existing conservative majority to his advantage.

...how did that 60% supermajority come and go?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I'm guessing it may be Reagan's almost 59% in 1984. I would say that there were in some respects a much more conservative electorate back then. There is a case to be made that there is a more liberal electorate now than in previous years but I'm not convinced that there is to the same degree. When Reagan came along the Republicans had a traditional strong base dominating the West and stretching through the Midwest into New England. He was able to add the entire South to that coalition. By that point the Democrats were really pretty screwed. If you look at 1988 you get an idea of what kind of results Democrats could get in those days, without Reagan on the ballot. Things changed after that, of course.


Are we really any more liberal?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,584


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 18, 2008, 06:01:27 am »

My point is that Barack appeals to some people that would otherwise vote conservative. Reagan won over many who would have voted for a Liberal, so just because you are ideologically strong doesn't make you ideologically limited...in some cases.

No...it's more a case of Keyes not appealing to some people who would otherwise vote conservative. It's like using 1964 to show how LBJ had tremendous appeal to conservatives in the north. Or even as an example of how popular GOldwater was in the South.

As for Reagan, he mostly managed to utilize an existing conservative majority to his advantage.

...how did that 60% supermajority come and go?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I'm guessing it may be Reagan's almost 59% in 1984. I would say that there were in some respects a much more conservative electorate back then. There is a case to be made that there is a more liberal electorate now than in previous years but I'm not convinced that there is to the same degree. When Reagan came along the Republicans had a traditional strong base dominating the West and stretching through the Midwest into New England. He was able to add the entire South to that coalition. By that point the Democrats were really pretty screwed. If you look at 1988 you get an idea of what kind of results Democrats could get in those days, without Reagan on the ballot. Things changed after that, of course.


Are we really any more liberal?

The South definitely is. I'd say California is as well.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 18, 2008, 09:59:07 am »

I doubt the south is more liberal. Maybe California is.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,692
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2008, 07:46:40 pm »

I doubt the south is more liberal. Maybe California is.

More liberal than 1964? Hell yeah, while the South isn't exactly a hot bed of progressivism and tolerance it's not exact living in the 1950s either.
Logged
The Hack Hater
AloneinOregon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 371
Virgin Islands, British


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: March 18, 2008, 07:57:58 pm »

I doubt the south is more liberal. Maybe California is.

More liberal than 1964? Hell yeah, while the South isn't exactly a hot bed of progressivism and tolerance it's not exact living in the 1950s either.

Yeah. Virginia's the best example(DC suburbs), but North Carolina and Georgia have both seen an influx of people from the north in recent years. But it's mostly felt in NC. Overall, it hasn't changed much, however.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,584


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: March 19, 2008, 12:29:37 pm »

I doubt the south is more liberal. Maybe California is.

I think giving Goldwater 87% of the vote is more conservative than today. Even giving Nixon 70% ís more conservative today. The South did give 40% of their votes to Kerry.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2008, 12:31:11 pm »

But, if you just look at the white vote, the south gives 70-90% of their votes to Bush.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,584


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2008, 03:51:49 pm »

But, if you just look at the white vote, the south gives 70-90% of their votes to Bush.

Depends on what state you're looking at. I don't think there are many places where he got 90%. In fact, that's sort of my point. But if you want to believe that the South has not changed in the last 3 to 5 decades, go ahead. It's a bit too deluded for me to want to argue the point. I'll just point out that blacks can actually hold office in those states now.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,692
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2008, 04:38:34 pm »

But, if you just look at the white vote, the south gives 70-90% of their votes to Bush.

Depends on what state you're looking at. I don't think there are many places where he got 90%. In fact, that's sort of my point. But if you want to believe that the South has not changed in the last 3 to 5 decades, go ahead. It's a bit too deluded for me to want to argue the point. I'll just point out that blacks can actually hold office in those states now.

Lynchings are also uncommon, segregation is no longer around, and there is a possibility that you could actually live as a gay person in parts of the South. Is it still behind the rest of the country? Of course however it has progressed since the 1950s. To say that it hasn't is quite delusional.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2008, 05:04:31 pm »

Yeah, but I heard of a report of a prom being segregated until last year. ...and if the country is more liberal, where is President Gore?
Logged
The Hack Hater
AloneinOregon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 371
Virgin Islands, British


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2008, 05:18:27 pm »

There's more liberal, and there's electing some guy who supported gun restrictions and a number of other policies that made him unpopular in the South. Obviously, the South is still behind the rest of the country in a number of ways, and they'll continue to hold us back for quite some time.
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2008, 05:35:53 pm »

Well, are they as relatively conservative as they were then?
Logged
The Hack Hater
AloneinOregon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 371
Virgin Islands, British


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2008, 05:52:04 pm »

Probably not, but they're still conservative enough to be reliably Republican in pratically every state except for Florida, which doesn't exactly fit in with the rest of the South for a number of reasons. As for Virginia, I might give it another 1-2 presidential elections before it really becomes a swing state. It doesn't represent the whole South, by any means.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC