Is that an interstice in your pocket, or are you glad to see me? 
The trick is we do not know how pervasive the racism is and how it will manifest itself in the election. WV just gives me an uncomfortable feeling. The differences between Hillary and Barack are not all that great. To have an overwhelming defeat of Obama worries me. I fear we have a lot of racism to deal with in our country.
Y’know, I’ve searched on the posts of ElvisL1ves in GD and the Pit over the last few weeks and I cannot find any place where he made the statement that you put into a quote box.
We take a very dim view of people messing around with the quote tags. If you have a source for that “quote,” please provide it. Otherwise, refrain from using the quote tags to create a quote for another poster to have submitted.
= = =
If you feel that someone has posted inaccurate information about you in GD, use the Report button DO NOT accuse another poster of lying in GD.
[ /Moderating ]
Two questions:
- Are the 67% of West Virginia Democrats who voted for Hillary more or less racist then the 95% of the blacks nationally who vote for Obama?
After all, if there isn’t much difference between the two, then how can 95% of blacks justify their votes?
- Could it be possible that if West Virginia had a significant black population, that the numbers would have looked like PA’s? Why don’t we hear about racist white PAians?
Because there aren’t any, silly.
Because there’s a big difference between wanting one of your own kind to be President once, and wanting one of your own kind to be President every single time, without exception.
They’d also need a couple of big cities, a much larger college-educated population, etc., etc.
We did - but not nearly to the same extent, because they were much less of a factor in PA than in WV.
You seem to be under the illusion, a common one to be sure among your faction, that the general-election “game” is the *same * game as the primary one. It ain’t. The electorate is different, the rules are different, the winning strategies are different, the importance of the result is *completely * different. To claim as you do that the winner of one is best positioned to win the next, as is the case in sports, is simply ignorant.
The GOP has understood for a long time that only winning the most electoral votes matters - if you don’t, it don’t mean shit. They have chosen candidates and strategies based on the desired end result, and worked from there. Most of the time, it has worked, too. They have not had this strange idea that selecting the candidate who happened to meet their own particular standards for purity gave them the best chance of winning among people who don’t share those standards.
Do you really want to go wandering around in bewilderment in November wondering what wen wrong yet again? Or do you actually see some value in understanding what went wrong for Kerry or Gore or Dukakis or Mondale or McGovern? Could it be that what went wrong for when it mattered was choosing the wrong candidate in the primaries, for the wrong reasons? The blame for that, as you may have gathered, has been attributable to people like you.
I’m sick of Republican administrations. Maybe, sharing as you obviously do the Pubs’ passion for hating the Clintons as your highest priority, you instead would be happy with yet another one. Meanwhile, the country will pay the heavy cost for indulging the irresponsibility and naivete of those of you who do.
No, he’s being quite accurate.
He’s not saying whether they’re the same game or a different one. What he’s saying is that, if you don’t win, you don’t advance. Period.
Nobody else figured that out, but they did. That explains their electoral dominance.
Uhhuh. I remember a week or so before the 2000 election, when they were anticipating winning the popular vote, and losing the EC. It was purely a fluke that it turned out the other way around.
I also remember 2004, when Bush won the popular vote by a few million votes, but if less than 19,000 people in three states had flipped from Bush to Kerry, the election would have been decided by the House.
On the whole, I see no basis for believing that the GOP either has a stronger focus on the EC than the Dems do, or that they have used such a focus to their advantage.
That’s right, DSeid, it’s all your fault!
Seriously, Elvis, your argument for choosing Clinton over Obama sounds a lot like the argument for choosing Kerry over Dean in 2004: Kerry was supposed to be different from the McGoverns and Dukakises, while Dean was just going to take us right down that road again.
I’d say you’re the one who’s falling into the same trap: look at the map! She’s electable! while not realizing that the support that map is based on is completely transitory. Hell, she’s shot herself in the foot enough times, just in the past week, to give the GOP plenty of ammunition. RFK and Zimbabwe, indeed.
Obama’s been a gentleman about it, because he needs her supporters. The GOP wouldn’t be; they’d tear her to shreds.
Lucky for your illusions that they’ll never get the chance. As DSeid said, if you don’t win the preliminary round, you don’t advance.
Clinton will get zero electoral votes this fall.
I’m a married man. I’ve long ago learned that everything is all my fault, and my fault for for not knowing why it’s my fault too!
Glad to hear that Elvis is
and hope that such disgust will allow those like him to help fight the battle from here together. No matter they may think of people like me. 
You still have not gotten the point that you have been working *against * that goal, so gleefully and energetically that your claim to commitment to it is not credible.
And RTF, you’ve had it explained to you before. You have to do your part too, ya know. I know this incessant talk about this Electoral College thing frustrates you badly, but you really do have to learn about it, or else join DSeid in bewilderment next November.
But, since your primary goal is defeating Clinton, not McCain, no matter the consequences to the nation, perhaps that doesn’t matter to you either.
Yes! It’s my fault too, it’s all our faults!
The primary goal was defeating Clinton. The general goal is to defeat McCain.
Well some apparently believe that Obama can beat McCain.
Me, I’ll hold off for while. It is a long way until election day. The various predictors of electoral vote outcome will flip many times between now and then, come up during the Democratic Convention, reverse during the Republican one. It will be an exciting and interesting few months.
Nice find! I don’t read many Kos diaries, but that was a great one!
If your argument that Clinton is better suited than Obama to beat McCain is all about the EC map, I think I’ve already rebutted every point you’ve made. The GOP hasn’t been winning recent elections because of a better grasp of the EC map than the Dems, as I explained in more detail in my last post before this one. And as I and others have pointed out to you elsewhere in this thread, Hillary’s apparently greater EC advantage over McCain is a development of the past several weeks rather than a demonstrably enduring difference, and there’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t vanish “like ice in a drink, invisible ink, or dreams in the cold light of day,” as the Rutles once sang, once the GOP smear-and-innuendo machine was focused on her, rather than Obama.
Well, of course - it’s the primaries. Duh.
My primary goal is defeating Clinton, not just because I find her proposed policies on everything but health care to either be equivalent to or inferior to Obama’s proposals, but in recent weeks, she’s turned into a gaffe-prone candidate (RFK, Zimbabwe, etc.) that the GOP will shred to pieces when she’s equally clumsy in the general election.
My general election goal is defeating McCain, and enlarging our Congressional majorities to Blue Dog-proof and nearer to filibuster-proof majorities. As I’ve just indicated, I see a potential Hillary nomination as being detrimental in this regard.
The problem is, I don’t buy your claim that defeating Clinton in the primaries would have noticeable consequences to the nation. AFAICT, you haven’t convinced anyone but yourself of these consequences.
Denial is *not * a synonym for rebuttal. :rolleyes:
'Tis a pity you still don’t see that that’s the *only * goal, and accomplishing it merely *starts * with the primaries. The Dems keep making that same mistake every four years.
Horse, water. :shrug:
OK, here was the most recent instance of ‘denial’:
I suppose I could have added the results of 1980, 1984, and 1988, when the GOP’s EC advantage was based on hefty popular-vote advantages, and Bill Clinton’s hefty EC wins that were based on more middlin’ popular-vote margins. Or we could even go back as far as Carter, whose 1976 popular-vote margin was narrower than Bush’s in 2004, but whose EC win was by a larger margin than Bush’s in 2004.
Call that ‘denial’ if you want. There ain’t nothin’ there.
What mistake are we talking about this time? You were just talking about the Dems’ lack of appreciation of the EC map being the big mistake; now it’s something to do with the primaries - and in the past, we’ve rarely had much idea of the differing candidates’ EC prospects while the nomination race was still alive and kicking. So you must be talking about something else now.
But I can’t figure out what. So I’ve asked the question in a new thread, which will give you an opportunity, if you wish, to pull together the mistakes you may have mentioned in scattered places in this and other threads, but I can’t recall.