I love that answer every time you use it. You put forth a liberal theory; 98% of the Great Debaters agree with you (surprise, surprise) and it’s now fact.
Well anticipating that I just asked for a reminder.
And that’s what I gave you. Every conceivable argument on either side of that point was put forth in that four-page thread. Hence, “We’ve already covered that.” What more do you want?
He wants you to admit you’re wrong.
Deval Patrick begs to disagree.
I think it will be more or less the same. The deep south and Great Plane states will be red, the NE and West Coast will be solidly blue. The only states that will actually matter will be MI, FL, OH and PA. A few other states might flip, (VA, CO, NM, MO,NV) but they either won’t carry enough electoral votes to affect the ultimate result or they will only flip if a candidate has 300+ electoral votes and so won’t matter.
I look forward to a time when we’re not just basically replaying the 2000 election over and over again. But I don’t think this is it.
You’re welcome to come back home whenever you’re ready.
Warner is going to clean Gilmore’s clock like there’s no tomorrow and while people are out voting I suspect they’ll pull the Obama lever.
Would that I could, my friend. But I have to execute my business plan and sell before I’m free to do so.
But that’s my take on it. Gilmore’s going to get so stomped he’ll have PTSD about elections for years to come. He’s clearly the sacrificial lamb for this one. Tom Davis was supposed to make the run but he opted out when faced with Warner.
Did Karl Rove actually say this (bigotry) stereotype is the reason McCain is ignoring the South?
If not, did he offer an opinion on why McCain is taking the south for granted?
If he didn’t offer any explanation, do you think MCain is banking on bigotry?
Yes, I do.
Really?
I would think he might be banking (if he is) on the Religious Right, who would never vote for a Democratic Party candidate.
Is there any actual evidence that McCain is ignoring the south? Seems silly to have a debate about the reasons he’s doing so without knowing if that is in fact what he’s doing. FWIW I tried looking up his by state campaign spending at the FEC site, but he doesn’t appear to have submitted those numbers for '08.
In any case, I doubt he’s ignoring VA, NC, FL or MO (is Missouri considered “southern”?) (the three (or four) southern states “in play”), for reasons of precieved racial bias or otherwise. While those three states may very well go for McCain in the election, I think he’d be shooting himself in the foot to ignore them.
McCain’s actually going to have to pay attention to whatever Obama forces him to. Like a talking head from Politico said, Obama is on the offensive. Obama has sent out thousands of workers to open campaign offices in every state. When he says he has a 50 state strategy, he really means it. He’ll be spending a lot of money in states that McCain ordinarily wouldn’t have to fight so hard for, and that includes Southern states. I think he has taken those states for granted and would like to continue doing so, but won’t be able to.
“My post is my cite.”
He’s pretty obviously linking to the previous thread to avoid hijacking this one, not as any sort of “cite”. Honestly, I wish people would do that more often.
What’s the point in having him rehash his arguments in this relatively unrelated thread when the linked one is only two weeks old.
I love the 50 state strategy, for which I think due credit is to offered to Dr Dean. No, he won’t win every state, but, for the first time since Goddess knows when, the Dems have at least parity in ready cash, maybe even the advantage. He can force McCain to spend money where he might otherwise have not, because McCain cannot afford to rely on solidly “red” states, there may not be such a thing any more.
Hot damn!
It’s Karl Rove. His lips are moving = he’s lying.
Hillary got to you, didn’t she.
I’d like to hear more about how the 50-state strategy should be credited to Dean. Not arguing, just asking, because I think he’s done a good job as Chairman of the DNC (should’ve kept his foot down though).
Not as originator, but as advocate. In fairness, the strategy is much more practical since people keep sending Obama money. I have a long standing beef with the Clintonistas and the “centrist” Dem leadership. They sought to rectify the money imbalance with the Pubbies by publicly sucking up to Big Biz. A hopeless strategy even as cynicism, which is usually pretty practical. The Pubbies would always have the advantage under that approach, and it has the repulsive effect of making Dems into Republican Lite, Tweedledumb to their Tweedledumber. Fuck that shit!