[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Have you read her thesis? Which parts do you think red staters will find so objectionable?
[/QUOTE]
The word “Democrat”. You really have to *ask * him?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Only the undecided have not yet decided, right? Is your point that decideds can change their minds? Sure - but not without “something happening”.
[/quote]
Of course. And something that is sure to happen is the general election campaign.
As others have pointed out, polls provide a snapshot in time. This snapshot captures a nasty Dem primary with McCain on the media sidelines. No one doubts that the picture will be significantly different in 5 months.
The polls had Kerry up by 6 or so at this point.
I’m not interested in your strawmen. If you want to debate like rational people, then we can talk.
ETA: looked up the cite for myself.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
Look at the numbers on that site, the Strong Dem refers to how much advantage the particular candidate has in that state, not some nebulous definition.
[/quote]
Nobody said otherwise. The definition is a 10% lead in the latest poll - and “Strong Dem/Rep” is dependent on the matchup. A strong Clinton state can be a weak Obama state, and several are. The meaning is that Clinton can book it and Obama is at risk.
Please. There is such a thing as looking at statistical data too deeply, especially when only the bottom line (which smooths it out somewhat) matters.
You first have to consider how much of McCain’s support *needs * eroding by each candidate. For Clinton, that would be “not much”. For Obama, “quite a bit”. It may well be true that Obama *can * do more of that support-eroding than Clinton, though it’s not easy to see why without my polarized glasses on, but then he *has * to do more of it.
You also have to consider how much of the 2 Dems’ existing support is vulnerable to erosion by McCain (yes, it’s a real-world possibility, though it’s hard to tell from THIS forum). Clinton’s over-5%-lead base is substantially larger than Obama’s, 244-207 as of today, and includes all of the Battleground Trio while Obama’s includes none of them.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Of course. And something that is sure to happen is the general election campaign.
[/quote]
And Obama has to hope that the “something” will go his way, while Clinton can take a hit.
As I said.
Projection.
I am beginning to wonder if a VP slot is what Hillary has been after all along for the past few months, once the writing was on the wall.
Why else would she continue go so far and muddy up the Primaries so badly - knowing that at this point, if Obama loses the General Election by some ridiculously small margin, it will all come back to Hillary turning the Democrats against each other at this stage of the game.
This seems to position herself as the only real, viable VP candidate - to ensure those voters who are strongly behind her remain loyal to the Democratic ticket.
Otherwise - as a savvy politician, why else would Hillary want to beat this dead horse into the ground and make Obama’s nomination as tainted as possible? It certainly won’t make her any friends, should she want to try again in four years.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
TheI think you give Republicans far too little credit. A few closet racists will accept your spin, but most people will see it for what it is: a black girl at white Princeton discussing her allegiance to her community. Most Americans are not troubled by organizations like Black Law Students, or historically black colleges whose mission is to help the black community. I’m not that optimistic about Americans in general, but I’m not so cynical as to believe that Americans will hear about Obama’s thesis and conclude that her spouse will therefore privilege black people in his policy. Not swing voters anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Do you REMEMBER the last election?
I mean, in 2004, one party successfully painted one of the candidates as having a bad war record, and the one they painted was the guy who was actually a war hero.
With all due respect to unnamed swing voters, you don’t have to convince a lot of them, you just have to convince stupid ones. And there’s lots of them.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
And Obama has to hope that the “something” will go his way, while Clinton can take a hit.
[/quote]
Sure, if you accept one measure of the EVs of your choosing over several others available. If there were a consensus suggesting that Hillary looks better in the GE polling, you’d have a point. But that isn’t the case. And I was arguing that we ought not spend too much time arguing over whether 538 or SurveyUSA is better than electoral-vote, or how close a state has to be in order to be in play, because the polling at this point isn’t that reliable anyway.
No, you said polls showed a tight race, despite the electoral dynamics. It is also false to say that the current dynamics are the same as those in 2004. The better comparison is 2006.
Ok, back that up. Where did I create a strawman of your argument?
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Do you REMEMBER the last election?
I mean, in 2004, one party successfully painted one of the candidates as having a bad war record, and the one they painted was the guy who was actually a war hero.
With all due respect to unnamed swing voters, you don’t have to convince a lot of them, you just have to convince stupid ones. And there’s lots of them.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the popular narrative, but is it true that Bush won because swing voters thought Kerry wasn’t a patriotic enough? Seems to me that exit polling pretty soundly contradicted that narrative. It suggested that gay marriage, abortion, and such social issues were the key.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Ok, back that up. Where did I create a strawman of your argument?
[/QUOTE]
You first. :rolleyes:
And what is the name of the planet on which the Swiftboaters did not have an effect on the number of undecideds going for Kerry? :dubious:
Helpful hint: When an argument of yours gets blown up, it’s *okay * to acknowledge it, even if only tacitly, really, it is. It’s not okay to deny something everyone else can see, and it’s especially not okay to claim it’s “irrational”. Not, that is, when you’re sitting at the big table with the grownups.
Thank you for the reminder of why I stopped engaging you. Toodles.
Yep, I called it.
Obama is looking pretty presidential, if you ask me,brokering a cease fire in the Niger delta in his spare time.
Cut to Hannity: “Armed Revolutionaries endorse Obama!”
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Obama is looking pretty presidential, if you ask me,brokering a cease fire in the Niger delta in his spare time.
[/QUOTE]
“Appeals for” /= “brokers”. Anybody can appeal. All it takes is a phone call.
See, I actually *read * the link. You might try it too.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
“Appeals for” /= “brokers”. Anybody can appeal. All it takes is a phone call.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but how often does the person on the other end of the phone listen?
Have they actually stopped shooting there, or was Obama just grandstanding?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Have they actually stopped shooting there, or was Obama just grandstanding?
[/QUOTE]
So far the Obama campaign hasn’t said a word about any of this, neithering confirming nor denying that he had any role in the potential ceasefire.
I am sure he is just grandstanding. Disingenuous bastard.
[QUOTE=grayhairedmomma]
So far the Obama campaign hasn’t said a word about any of this, neithering confirming nor denying that he had any role in the potential ceasefire.
[/QUOTE]
And they’d be foolish to, at least at this point.
[QUOTE=stolichnaya]
I am sure he is just grandstanding. Disingenuous bastard.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, especially when there are all those poor, oppressed, put-upon people in the impoverished nations of Florida and Michigan he could be helping! Self-centered jerk.