Yeah, but from what I’ve heard a lot of that was against Goldwater personally and from Kennedy’s martyrdom factor. And sure, Obama has his charisma and he’s tied McCain to Bush, but he’s also making McCain emblematic of conservatism, and I think that these are much lesser influences than they were for Johnson. A lot of the success of the Obama campaign has been in registering new voters; did Johnson do as much of that?
And your point is? I made it clear that I think McCain will win, but just barely. But if the county vote shifts deeply to blue, mark my words, the GOP will be relegated to the backwaters for a spell. With the exception of Carter, this place has voted Republican since Nixon. Before that, it voted Democrat all the way back to Samuel Tilden (with the exception of Hoover). There’s at least a hundred years of history with respect of being red or blue for a long period of time. The fact that a “colored” person is getting a lot of attention in this area should scare the absolute crap out of the GOP. In the South, there’s never been miscegenation when it comes to the marriage of race and politics, but the marriage ain’t what it use to be. And economics is playing big role here. A lot of textile workers have lost their jobs in this area in the last ten years, and are never coming back. They’re working for $8.00/hour with no health insurance. The perception I get from the locals is that by voting for the GOP all these years they thought they would get a piece of the pie as the rich got richer and protect their family values. That hasn’t happened: Roe v. Wade still remains intact, and since the rich are still getting richer along with that bailout using taxpayer money…well, you do the math. Sure fire hot button issues like terrorism, abortion, family values, school prayer, creationism in the schools, stuff people ranted and raved about even four months ago—no one seems to be talking about that now in my neck of the woods. This is the first election since 1980 where I’ve sensed people feel that our national destiny is at stake.
My point is that even a landslide win now does not mean that the winning party will win again in four years, let alone be in control for the next 20, 30, or 40.
Did he ever! Every person in a Texas graveyard that wasn’t over 50 years dead got to vote one more time in 1964.
I’m just pointing out that in 1964, Goldwater carried two states. (I think. It was some really low number) Yet four years later, the Republicans won. If Obama does indeed win, it’s not likely be by nearly as much as Johnson did in '64.
1964 tell us that just because a certain party wins one election by a large margin, one cannot assume that that party will be in power for the foreseeable future.
The Republican leadership appears to disagree, considering how much they pander to the racists.
My sister is going to be a precinct judge this year. Her training session was last night and she was told the election board is expecting 80% turnout based on the primary voting and the extraordinary early vote turnout.
The caveat is that some of our precincts in this county had over 100% turnout in 2004. And no, I’m not joking.
She’s also sad to learn she can’t take the machine home with her, unlike past years.
I agree entirely; this “permanent majority” nonsense coming from either party is simply, well, nonsense.
Politics flows in cycles; always has, always will.
The Democrats will be in control for a while now, and (in my opinion) will make some much needed steps in the opposite direction from Republican control. At some point in the future, we (as in, my side) will become arrogant, corrupt, and entitled, and the Republicans will get their turn again. And so it goes.
Cite? If you feel like it. If you don’t feel like it, no big deal, I won’t harass you on it.
According to a story by Greg Palast and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the big surprise is that a lot of people are going to show up to to vote only to find themselves purged from the voter rolls. They claim that in Colorado one out of six registered voters has been purged, and as many as 2.7 million newly registered voters have had their applications rejected.
It’s possible they’re being overly alarmist, and I don’t trust RFK Jr. as an authority on anything since he started riding the vaccine-autism bullshit train. Maybe the Colorado voter rolls were just that badly out of date. But the time to worry about this is now, and not on November 4, or even worse, Nov. 5.
They can’t mean the 2.7 million to refer to Colorado alone. There are only a bit over 3 million registered voters there, and only just under 5 million population.
Yep, get those ol’ faithful arguments warmed up.
I will bet you $100 that Obama wins the election.
Sorry, the 2.7 mil is nationwide.
Hello ? The Southern Strategy ? Rove’s push-poll implying that McCain had a black baby ? Jesse Helm’s ad with the white hand crumpling up a job application ?
Racism, and appealing to it has been a central value of the Republicans for decades. However much apologists like to pretend otherwise.
Yes, those inconvenient truths that your side doesn’t like. The head of Diebold can openly boast about handing votes to Bush, but we are supposed to ignore that because voter fraud can’t happen in America. :rolleyes:
Oh, it can happen. It’s just limited to being perpetrated by disorganized hippies and poor people.
Oh, I dunno… The “get out the vote” folks have been very active this year. So much so that a Montgomery, Alabama TV station reported last night that six Alabama counties now have more registered voters than the voting age population reported in the last census.
Odd, since the six subject counties have been undergoing population decline for the past several decades. But as I said, the get out the vote folks have had a good year.
How many people would have turned 18 since the last census? Enough to skew the results I wonder.
Welcome to my world. In 2004, under the Republicans, there was over 100% voter turnout in some precincts in my county.
But those of us who wondered what the hell was going on were told that we were just paranoid, or whiners, or sore losers.
One thing I worry about is if Clinton and Bush are the beginning of a pattern, where we have an 8-year Democrat, then an 8-year Republican, then an 8-year Democrat, then an 8-year Republican…it’s too much of a swing too quickly, and I’m not sure that flipflopping between policies like that every 8 years is healthy.
Should be about the same number that died, if the overall population has been on a steady decline for several decades.