An honest question for both sides...

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
He will be the president of our country, but hell no - i won't acknowledge him as "my" president, because I don't care for the hateful, backsliding, scurrilous way in which he's conducted and allowed his campaign to be conducted. They've fed on and encouraged lies, distortions and hate mongering, while Obama has conducted himself with grace dignity and honor.

I'll always respect the office, as I've said here before. But based on their conduct (Palin's and McCain's) during this campaign, I wouldn't consider them personally worthy of my respect.
 

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
But even accounting for demonstrably real things like margin of errors in polls, overvote and undervote rates on the various types of voting machines used, and unproven voter behaviors like the "Bradley effect", there's no reasonable scenario in which Obama receives fewer than 286 electoral votes.[/URL].

Interesting post. I have nothing mathematical to add, but I do feel that ultimately the race card will come into play here, how do you statistically discount the "Bradley effect?" People have become very adept at masking prejudice.
 

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
. Went directly to the White House to work for him. The thing that simply blew me away was the residue from the hard-fought, even nasty, campaign, when dozens of people were interviewed on TV saying
"He's not MY commander-in-chief!"
"I refuse to recognize William J. Clinton as my president!"
"I'll never accept that this country chose a Democrat. Never!"
"

Very nice personal recollection.

I too recall this time period, and was also shocked by the repudiation of Clinton, whom I think was the best politician I've ever seen. My experience was at a far greater distance, and hence less personal, than your own. Prior to this, I always thought that when the battle was over, both sides buried the hatchet, but a resurgent Republican right wouldn't stand for that then, and I suspect they won't if Obama wins.

Bush "won" in 2000, but the facts of the matter are still so repugnant to me (Jim Baker inspired blocked recounts, rushes to certify the vote by K. Harris, an appointee of Jeb Bush, etc.), that even though he's the President, and even won a second term, he does not represent my views, but he's still the Prez, like it or not. I'd say the same for McCain, if he wins. Unfortunately, in our "winner take all" system you have to accept the other party's guy, even if you can't stand him. Or you could leave, but better to stay and fight.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Interesting post. I have nothing mathematical to add, but I do feel that ultimately the race card will come into play here, how do you statistically discount the "Bradley effect?" People have become very adept at masking prejudice.

I'm not statistically discounting the "Bradley effect": I'm predicting that the circumstances in four states that Bush won in 2004 are atypical enough to overcome a possible Bradley effect. In other words, I'm claiming that for reasons that go beyond mere poll numbers, Obama can reliably count on these states that Kerry lost, which will be enough to bring him over the top:

  • Iowa: Obama has already won Iowa once: he won the January 3 Democratic caucus by a resounding amount at a time when Obama had no momentum from previous victories. His support was geographically spread out within the state: he won 41 of Iowa's 99 counties.

    John McCain, on the other hand, came in fourth in the Iowa Caucuses, and picked up only three delegates. One contributing factor is that McCain decided to skip the Ames Straw Poll completely -- an insult to Iowa Republicans that I bet he's regretting now. They take pride in their first-in-the-nation status and don't cotton to being passed over for larger states.

    Finally, Jim Leach, a towering figure in Iowa Republican politics, having served the state in Congress for 30 years before retiring in 2007, endorsed Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention.
  • Virginia: Virginia runs its state and local elections in odd-numbered years, so the only elections on ballots are President, Senate, and House. The Republican Party in Virginia is in a shambles right now, having nominated the unpopular Jim Gilmore against titan Mark Warner in a battle for the open seat left by John Warner's retirement. Today's pollster.com composite shows Warner leading Gilmore 60-31; no other open-seat Senate race in the country is this lopsided. We may be seeing a case where Warner's popularity in Virginia has 'reverse coattails' for Obama.

    But the news gets worse for Virginia Republicans. If the Republican nominee for president and the Republican nominee for Senate weren't weak enough to depress Republican turnout this year, they dropped the ball completely in a critical House race. Virginia's 9th Congressional district covers the entire western portion of the state -- the deepest part of the Appalachian mountains where Obama's support is allegedly weakest. In this, the second-reddest of all of Virginia's congressional districts, the Republicans failed to nominate anyone at all for the House of Representatives before the ballot deadline. So in a district where McCain would have been expected to clean up, Republican voters are looking at a presidential race that looks insurmountable, a Senate race that looks insurmountable, and no House race at all, leading to expectations that turnout may be lower this year than usual in that district.
  • Colorado and New Mexico: Owing to time constraints (I have a class in 15 minutes and I've run long already!), I'm simplifying the case for these two states -- New Mexico's is especially interesting:

    The Obama lead in the polls is typically predicated on the assumption that Obama has a lead among young voters and that turnout among young voters will be higher this year. I'll admit that while that assumption seems reasonable, it's hard to prove without a strong precedent. But in Colorado and New Mexico, Obama has an 'insurance' plan: He has a significant advantage among older voters in these two states, so that even if young voters don't turn out in expected numbers, he should still carry these two states:

    One of the reasons for Obama's success in these states is the legacy of Morris Udall. Morris Udall was a political giant in the 1970's and 1980's, and the Udall name looms as large in western states as the Kennedy name does out east. In 2006, two Udalls (son Mark and nephew Tom) ran for House seats and won by margins of 68-28 and 75-25 respectively. That name is a huge draw to older voters who remember how hard Mo Udall worked for them and helps ensure that older Democrats will vote in large numbers in these states.