Nope, not racist. Just an educated projection based on the demographics of recent elections. Black voters vote for Democratic presidential candidates in numbers exceeding 90%. Can you point to any year when they did not? Is it racist to notice this?
It’s no more bigoted to notice this trend than it is to notice that Montanans in general tend to vote Republican, and to make projections on that basis. Would you consider it a form of bigotry to predict that Montana will vote for Bush? After all, Montanans aren’t unthinking drones are they?
There is NO reason to think black, traditionally Democratic voters are going to swing to Bush this year. (Particularly not after he refused to speak to the NAACP.)
As for black voters turning out in numbers for Majette, well, it’s awfully frustrating being a black voter, I would imagine-- so seldom seeing someone who’s shared your life experiences on a ballot for anything higher than a congressional seat or a mayoral office. It’s hardly a stretch to think that seeing a black candidate on the ballot for Senator (for the first time ever in Georgia) may get black Georgians excited about voting.
I’ll go ahead and accept the 10%/4% odds of the bet. Seems to make sense and give us both a happy shot at victory.
Not a drinker, but we could do something simple like a PayPal account transfer of a certain dollar amount.
Another note/pondering on Majette.
A couple of times on this thread and quite often in the paper, I have heard people taking Majette to task for running for Senate with so little experience, but the more I think about it, the more I think she almost had to take this action, this year. I say with all certainty that she would have lost to a challenge from Cynthia McKinney. Majette seems nice, but is quiet, has done nothing really remarkable or memorable, and doesn’t make much of an impression. McKinney would have had much more funding, clear name recognition, and a core group of voters that Majette couldn’t touch. So instead of losing a House race and fading into oblivion, she took a chance on losing a Senate race that at least should put her name in the lights a little bit more. Say she loses this time, she would be much more well known in a few years should she opt to go for something like Georgia governor, which I can see her winning much more than a Senate seat.
Remarkably, the Bush-supporting www.electionprojection.com and the Kerry-supporting www.electoral-vote.com poll compilation sites *both * have Kerry up 327-211 as of today, even with GA listed as solid for Bush in both.
It should be noted that electoral-vote.com is at least now putting up some stuff about Kerry’s record, too. However, I haven’t looked at it yet to see how much scrutiny’s he’s put under as compared to Bush.
The other site still seems strongly pro-Bush, however, a few of the things in their “21 reasons why Bush will win” have clearly not come true. Especially the economic cycle (concensus indicates growth is slowing now), same sex marriage (enthusiasm for an amendment is lackluster at best; even GOP strategists admit this); governor Schwarzenegger (not a soul expects Bush to win California); the Deaniac revolt that never happened (in fact, they might hate Nader more than anyone, and Dean even debated him not long ago, and Dean himself has become a big-time Democratic fundraiser); and judicial nominees (can’t either party get that no one gives a hoot about this?).
Problem is, we don’t know how Strategic Vision defines “likely voters.” I’d be willing to bet that their system does not take into account the potential phenomenon I’m describing in this thread.
But thanks for that info. I needed something to keep Mully on the hook for our little wager.
Well, now having looked at that site, I’m deeply skeptical of electoral-vote.com. The poll numbers e-v claims for Strategic Visions are totally at odds with what’s actually reported on that site for today’s date.
I’m more thinking there’s been a snafu somewhere - at whose end, I don’t know.
Because I’ve often gone to the sources for electoral-vote.com’s state polls before, and it’s always been just as they said. There’s obviously been a massive screwup here, but it’s the first time I’ve seen anything like that at e-v.com.
Well I see www.electoral-vote.com has amended its map to show Bush with a 54% to 38% lead, so it looks like the 4% gap was a false glimmer for Democrats.
I still do not believe these polls take into account the potential phenomenon I am describing in this thread. I stand by my prediction that a late, grass-roots surge in black voters will reduce the margin to less than 4% on election day. Time will tell.
Not exactly. They will likely vote for her in numbers because she is a black Democrat.
Were she Republican, or were she white, her candidacy would not be met with the same level of enthusiasm in the black community.
Still no racism there. People like candidates who share their background, have common experiences, and who share their political views. People are voting for someone to represent them, after all.
Do you seriously not understand why a black citizen of Georgia would be excited about having a black Democratic candidate in the Senate race?
More precisely, the people who do give a hoot about this are the same ones who would vote for their preferred party if it nominated Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and adopted a platform calling for the United States to get out of North America.
