The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2008 => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on June 16, 2008, 03:43:01 PM
-
this is crack for electoral strategy junkies. :-)
a couple of thoughts; if he loses ohio and florida, I think that would mean that enough white women and blue
color workers have abandoned him that virginia and colorado become pretty hard to win. and I have no idea
why georgia keeps coming up in the discussion of "red states that could be flipped"; GWB won GA with nearly
60% of the freaking vote in 2004.
having said that, he won the nomination with an unorthodox strategy of basically losing (running close) in the big
states whi8le winning a bunch of caucus states by a huge margin, so whatever he comes up with for the general election
should be taken seriously.
Obama camp sees possible win without Ohio, Fla.
FLINT, Mich. (AP) — Barack Obama's campaign envisions a path to the presidency that could include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battlegrounds that decided the last two elections — Florida and Ohio.
In a private pitch late last week to donors and former supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe outlined several alternatives to reaching the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House that runs counter to the conventional wisdom of recent elections.
At a fundraiser held at a Washington brewery Friday, Plouffe told a largely young crowd that the electoral map would be fundamentally different from the one in 2004. Wins in Ohio and Florida would guarantee Obama the presidency if he holds onto the states won by Democrat John Kerry, Plouffe said, but those two battlegrounds aren't required for victory.
Florida, which has 27 electoral votes this year, gave the presidency to George W. Bush in the disputed election of 2000. Ohio, with its 20 electoral votes, ensured Bush of re-election in 2004 in his race against Kerry. Neither state was hospitable to Obama this year. Clinton handily won in Ohio and she prevailed in Florida although the national party had punished the state and the candidates didn't campaign there.
The presumed Democratic nominee's electoral math counts on holding onto the states Kerry won, among them Michigan (17 electoral votes), where Obama campaigns on Monday and Tuesday. Plouffe said most of the Kerry states should be reliable for Obama, but three currently look relatively competitive with Republican rival John McCain — Pennsylvania, Michigan and particularly New Hampshire.
Asked about his remarks, Plouffe said Ohio and Florida start out very competitive — but he stressed that they are not tougher than other swing states and said Obama will play "extremely hard" for both. But he said the strategy is not reliant on one or two states.
"You have a lot of ways to get to 270," Plouffe said. "Our goal is not to be reliant on one state on November 4th."
Plouffe has been pitching such a new approach to the electoral map in calls and meetings, according to several people who discussed the conversations on the condition of anonymity because they were meant to be private. Plouffe confirmed the descriptions in the interview.
Plouffe and his aides are weighing where to contest, and where chances are too slim to marshal a large effort. A win in Virginia (13 electoral votes) or Georgia (15 votes) could give Obama a shot if he, like Kerry, loses Ohio or Florida.
Plouffe also has been touting Obama's appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota.\
Obama's campaign has spent heavily on time and money in Virginia, where a Democratic presidential candidate hasn't won since 1964. In recent elections, however, high-profile Republicans have lost there. And in a sign of how serious Obama is taking the state, Plouffe dispatched to Virginia many aides who helped Obama stage his upset win in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.
The key, Plouffe told supporters, will be to register new black voters and new young voters in Virginia.
Much More (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIzO-5tNRbCrfaxT_qcKppetRwCwD91B8JG00)
-
having said that, he won the nomination with an unorthodox strategy of basically losing (running close) in the big
states whi8le winning a bunch of caucus states by a huge margin, so whatever he comes up with for the general election
should be taken seriously.
Are you aware that heavily democrat voting districts are awarded MORE delegates in the dem primaries ?
Which districts are among the heaviest democrat, to the tune of 90% or so ?
Guess which districts BHO targeted ?
Obama camp sees possible win without Ohio, Fla.
Obama's campaign has spent heavily on time and money in Virginia, where a Democratic presidential candidate hasn't won since 1964. In recent elections, however, high-profile Republicans have lost there. And in a sign of how serious Obama is taking the state, Plouffe dispatched to Virginia many aides who helped Obama stage his upset win in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.
The key, Plouffe told supporters, will be to register new black voters and new young voters in Virginia.
Virginians vote very differerently in the presidential than in state. We frequently go dem at gov. G.Allen blew it by losing focus to a possible white house look and assuming he had the senate in the bag. Uncharacteristically stupid move on his part.
That being said, NVa and Tidewater leave a heavy dem footprint. But I still think BHO has problems here.
-
having said that, he won the nomination with an unorthodox strategy of basically losing (running close) in the big
states whi8le winning a bunch of caucus states by a huge margin, so whatever he comes up with for the general election
should be taken seriously.
Are you aware that heavily democrat voting districts are awarded MORE delegates in the dem primaries ?
Which districts are among the heaviest democrat, to the tune of 90% or so ?
Guess which districts BHO targeted ?
yep. they are weighted, frequently by percentage of dem vote that turned out in the last general. that heavily benefits urban districts that just so happen to be largely african american.
-
having said that, he won the nomination with an unorthodox strategy of basically losing (running close) in the big
states whi8le winning a bunch of caucus states by a huge margin, so whatever he comes up with for the general election
should be taken seriously.
Are you aware that heavily democrat voting districts are awarded MORE delegates in the dem primaries ?
Which districts are among the heaviest democrat, to the tune of 90% or so ?
Guess which districts BHO targeted ?
yep. they are weighted, frequently by percentage of dem vote that turned out in the last general. that heavily benefits urban districts that just so happen to be largely african american.
bingo
and this race of his has nothing to do with race.... right....
-
When will MSM outlets like ABC News ever stop reporting Barack Hussein Obama press releases as "news"?
All this tells me is that he's in trouble in both states, even with the internal polling data. There's no way in hell he could ever win GA but lose both FL and OH. Trashy analysis.
-
If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.
-
When will MSM outlets like ABC News ever stop reporting Barack Hussein Obama press releases as "news"?
All this tells me is that he's in trouble in both states, even with the internal polling data. There's no way in hell he could ever win GA but lose both FL and OH. Trashy analysis.
I don't think he'll win any of those three
-
There is no way in HELL that Socialist will win Georgia.
-
The media is way overplaying their Magic Negro hand. I can see how people "sitting on the fence" will be so sick of Hussein Obama by the end of the summer that Dan Rather will have to kneecap McCain to keep McCain from running away with 46 states.
Obamamania is about to get to the saturation point. The reaction to Obama will soon mirror the reaction to the "Miracle Ear" commercial that runs every six minutes during a late night rerun of "Law & Order".
-
The media is way overplaying their Magic Negro hand. I can see how people "sitting on the fence" will be so sick of Hussein Obama by the end of the summer that Dan Rather will have to kneecap McCain to keep McCain from running away with 46 states.
Obamamania is about to get to the saturation point. The reaction to Obama will soon mirror the reaction to the "Miracle Ear" commercial that runs every six minutes during a late night rerun of "Law & Order".
add to that the assumption that "young people" are going to break a 30 year trend of NOT voting. they too will OD on politics as they always do once they see that whoever is running is just another polititian.
-
There is no way in HELL that Socialist will win Georgia.
This reminds me of the time the primitives were reminescencing about past elections, and one primitive "proved" that Walter Mundane "almost" carried Georgia against Ronald Reagan in 1984.
-
Dan Rather will have to kneecap McCain to keep McCain from running away with 46 states.
It could change, but as it stands now, given past trends, 49. All but Vermont.
-
hillary underestimated Obama in the primaries. she got pasted. jus' sayin'
-
hillary underestimated Obama in the primaries. she got pasted. jus' sayin'
she clearly misunderstood the plan they had for him however the primaries are way different than the general. that stuff will not work in the general and his weakness in so many demographics will show.
-
hillary underestimated Obama in the primaries. she got pasted. jus' sayin'
she clearly misunderstood the plan they had for him however the primaries are way different than the general. that stuff will not work in the general and his weakness in so many demographics will show.
I understand all that. I was just pointing out that she underestimated him, and she'll be at home for the playoffs, so to speak.
-
but as long as we're on the subject, here is one of "WE's General Election Scenarios"; He goes into the dem convention with something like a 5% lead, delivers one of his Zombie creating "I will heal the oceans" speeches, a good but of the country falls for it, and he comes out of it with a 20+ point bounce. McCain delivers one of his trademark wince inducing acceptance speeches, and the entire country switches the channel.
it could be all but over at that point.
it is significant that with all of the bad news that the MSM keeps shoveling on top of us, that mccain is only slightly behind. I'm just saying that this is about the biggest thing to hit politics since Reagan, and this talk of winning 40+ states just doesn't make any sense to me.
-
hillary underestimated Obama in the primaries. she got pasted. jus' sayin'
she clearly misunderstood the plan they had for him however the primaries are way different than the general. that stuff will not work in the general and his weakness in so many demographics will show.
I understand all that. I was just pointing out that she underestimated him, and she'll be at home for the playoffs, so to speak.
I think she was stuck on Bubba's campaign engine which was 16 years old. But she should NOT have failed to know that his populist "hope" crap would sell. It sure did for Bubba, the guy from Hope....
-
but as long as we're on the subject, here is one of "WE's General Election Scenarios"; He goes into the dem convention with something like a 5% lead, delivers one of his Zombie creating "I will heal the oceans" speeches, a good but of the country falls for it, and he comes out of it with a 20+ point bounce. McCain delivers one of his trademark wince inducing acceptance speeches, and the entire country switches the channel.
it could be all but over at that point.
it is significant that with all of the bad news that the MSM keeps shoveling on top of us, that mccain is only slightly behind. I'm just saying that this is about the biggest thing to hit politics since Reagan, and this talk of winning 40+ states just doesn't make any sense to me.
The first unscripted debate will change all that. Obama cannot form an unscripted sentence. "Hope & Change" won't cut it. Neither will calling the USA the greatest nation on earth and then talking about how we must have change. It doesn't connect.
-
but as long as we're on the subject, here is one of "WE's General Election Scenarios"; He goes into the dem convention with something like a 5% lead, delivers one of his Zombie creating "I will heal the oceans" speeches, a good but of the country falls for it, and he comes out of it with a 20+ point bounce. McCain delivers one of his trademark wince inducing acceptance speeches, and the entire country switches the channel.
it could be all but over at that point.
it is significant that with all of the bad news that the MSM keeps shoveling on top of us, that mccain is only slightly behind. I'm just saying that this is about the biggest thing to hit politics since Reagan, and this talk of winning 40+ states just doesn't make any sense to me.
its all going to boil down to taxes, terror and class warfare.
if the GOP can demonstrate how BHO is going to be excavating in EVERYONE's wallet that will nail him.
if they show the effect of cut-n-run, that should seal the deal.
throw in guns, race, judgement and THE SUPREME COURT and the right will turn up while kids will not.
and don't forget, Barry don't pay no walk around money....
-
hillary underestimated Obama in the primaries. she got pasted. jus' sayin'
she clearly misunderstood the plan they had for him however the primaries are way different than the general. that stuff will not work in the general and his weakness in so many demographics will show.
I understand all that. I was just pointing out that she underestimated him, and she'll be at home for the playoffs, so to speak.
I think she was stuck on Bubba's campaign engine which was 16 years old. But she should NOT have failed to know that his populist "hope" crap would sell. It sure did for Bubba, the guy from Hope....
probably had a lot to do with it. and she seemed to be running a general election/electoral college campaign (win the big states) instead of a primary campaign. I think it was mostly just a huge strategic blunder based on the fact that the early polls all said that she would waltz to the nomination. but at least BHO isn't going to sneak up on us like he did to her; we at least see him coming.
and bill clinton was a fluke in a lot of ways. the one primary season that he won was populated by lightweights. then, of course, he had ross perot to thank in 92 and 96 in the general.
-
but as long as we're on the subject, here is one of "WE's General Election Scenarios"; He goes into the dem convention with something like a 5% lead, delivers one of his Zombie creating "I will heal the oceans" speeches, a good but of the country falls for it, and he comes out of it with a 20+ point bounce. McCain delivers one of his trademark wince inducing acceptance speeches, and the entire country switches the channel.
it could be all but over at that point.
it is significant that with all of the bad news that the MSM keeps shoveling on top of us, that mccain is only slightly behind. I'm just saying that this is about the biggest thing to hit politics since Reagan, and this talk of winning 40+ states just doesn't make any sense to me.
The first unscripted debate will change all that. Obama cannot form an unscripted sentence. "Hope & Change" won't cut it. Neither will calling the USA the greatest nation on earth and then talking about how we must have change. It doesn't connect.
I agree that he doesn't debate well, but I'm not sure even he can screw it up badly enough to change things appreciably. unless someone says something extraordinarily stupid, presidential debates just don't move numbers. or at least they haven't in the past. and it remains to be seen what sort of impact seeing young, dynamic, and rhetorically brilliant BHO on the same debate stage next to john mccain could have. that alone could sink us.
and BHO's campaign is about to cram three dozen talking points into him, and threaten him if he deviates from them even slightly anytime between now and november. other than the conventions, it's going to be hard to move the numbers very much.
-
Michael Dukakis led in the polls by a margin exceeding 17% after the Democrat convention of 1988.
George Bush beat him in a 1980 Reaganesque landslide; remember?
-
Michael Dukakis led in the polls by a margin exceeding 17% after the Democrat convention of 1988.
George Bush beat him in a 1980 Reaganesque landslide; remember?
yep. but I think you are actually supporting my point. bush's convention was second, and his bump actually dwarfed dukakis' convention bump. the numbers didn't change very much after that.
-
Michael Dukakis led in the polls by a margin exceeding 17% after the Democrat convention of 1988.
George Bush beat him in a 1980 Reaganesque landslide; remember?
the MSM will insure a bump but its unsustainable over nearly 3 months.
-
Michael Dukakis led in the polls by a margin exceeding 17% after the Democrat convention of 1988.
George Bush beat him in a 1980 Reaganesque landslide; remember?
the MSM will insure a bump but its unsustainable over nearly 3 months.
I think that 10 days after both conventions are over, whatever the margin is at that point could very well be indicative of the margin in november. this is all complicated by the fact that the conventions are right on each other this election cycle; if I recall correctly, the dems end on thursday, and the republicans start the next monday (or something very similar to that). it's going to be harder than usual to figure out where the numbers are going and why until the dust settles.
-
with all this talk of bounces this morning, it is worth mentioning that he has gotten virtually no bounce at all (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5183218&page=1) from clinching the nomination.
-
with all this talk of bounces this morning, it is worth mentioning that he has gotten virtually no bounce at all (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5183218&page=1) from clinching the nomination.
you can thank HRC for that. I'm hoping she can keep her profile up up through the convention.
-
with all this talk of bounces this morning, it is worth mentioning that he has gotten virtually no bounce at all (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5183218&page=1) from clinching the nomination.
you can thank HRC for that. I'm hoping she can keep her profile up up through the convention.
it's either that, or it's the fact that the democrat party doesn't have a coherent, overarching political philosophy, or even a set of philosophies, that unite them, or at least forcibly bind them together. rather, they are a brawling and unnatural conglomeration of competing special interest groups based on class, gender, race, labor status, sexual orientation, &etc. And if that is true, then having a primary showdown between representatives of their two biggest special interest groups may not have been a very good idea after all. the only reason they were as united as they were in 2004 was their hysterical hatred of george bush, and he isn't on the ballot this year (although BHO does try to drag him into the conversation every 10 minutes).
-
with all this talk of bounces this morning, it is worth mentioning that he has gotten virtually no bounce at all (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5183218&page=1) from clinching the nomination.
you can thank HRC for that. I'm hoping she can keep her profile up up through the convention.
it's either that, or it's the fact that the democrat party doesn't have a coherent, overarching political philosophy, or even a set of philosophies, that unite them, or at least forcibly bind them together. rather, they are a brawling and unnatural conglomeration of competing special interest groups based on class, gender, race, labor status, sexual orientation, &etc. And if that is true, then having a primary showdown between representatives of their two biggest special interest groups may not have been a very good idea after all. the only reason they were as united as they were in 2004 was their hysterical hatred of george bush, and he isn't on the ballot this year (although BHO does try to drag him into the conversation every 10 minutes).
ergo the mantra that McC is just Dubya's 3rd term...
and that he's old
and a baby killer
-
If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.
Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election? I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.
-
Dan Rather will have to kneecap McCain to keep McCain from running away with 46 states.
It could change, but as it stands now, given past trends, 49. All but Vermont.
Vermont? What about Massachussetts? Are you assuming that Romney will be the veep?
-
Vermont? What about Massachussetts? Are you assuming that Romney will be the veep?
No, I'm not assuming anything.
What I'm doing is looking at this from the "what if the worst happens" angle.
What if Barry "Goldwater" Obama flops?
All he's got is Vermont in the bag; he'll take Vermont no matter how badly he flops.
What if John McCain flops?
John McCain's got the backbone, the spinal column, of America--North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--in the bag (and don't bother asking about certain other states too) no matter how badly he flops.
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and all the other corrupt machine-driven blue states are up in the air, actually, depending upon how badly Barry "Goldwater" Obama flops. If he flops big time, they're ours.
I'm not God, but I'm pretty sure Barry "Goldwater" Obama's going to flop.
How badly, it's too early to tell.
I've lived through presidential campaigns since I was a little lad, remember.
-
If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.
Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election? I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.
ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless
and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope
-
If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.
Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election? I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.
ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless
and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope
"kids" actually showed up in record numbers in 2004, they were just swallowed up by an overall huge turnout, including by our base. basically, to actually make a difference, what they need to hope for is that the kids show up, but everyone else stays home.
-
Vermont? What about Massachussetts? Are you assuming that Romney will be the veep?
No, I'm not assuming anything.
What I'm doing is looking at this from the "what if the worst happens" angle.
What if Barry "Goldwater" Obama flops?
All he's got is Vermont in the bag; he'll take Vermont no matter how badly he flops.
What if John McCain flops?
John McCain's got the backbone, the spinal column, of America--North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--in the bag (and don't bother asking about certain other states too) no matter how badly he flops.
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and all the other corrupt machine-driven blue states are up in the air, actually, depending upon how badly Barry "Goldwater" Obama flops. If he flops big time, they're ours.
I'm not God, but I'm pretty sure Barry "Goldwater" Obama's going to flop.
How badly, it's too early to tell.
I've lived through presidential campaigns since I was a little lad, remember.
I would disagree with you. New York, Massachussetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are all pretty much in the Obama column right now. I don't care how badly Obama flops, those states aren't going to McCain.
Also, a third party candidate might end up costing McCain some votes in states he would otherwise be expected to win. For example, at this point, I know that my vote for McCain will largely depend on whether I like his veep pick or not, because I do not like him. I could very well start looking at the Libertarian and Constitution Parties if McCain doesn't make good decisions in the next few months.
-
I would disagree with you. New York, Massachussetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are all pretty much in the Obama column right now. I don't care how badly Obama flops, those states aren't going to McCain.
Key words there, "right now."
You're making the mistake of assuming the political situation is static, that it's going to be the same in November as it is right now.
-
If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.
Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election? I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.
ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless
and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope
"kids" actually showed up in record numbers in 2004, they were just swallowed up by an overall huge turnout, including by our base. basically, to actually make a difference, what they need to hope for is that the kids show up, but everyone else stays home.
you sure about that ? my recollection at the time was that it was about the same as a percentage of potential ones. partly a matter of college kids going back to school and no longer near the voting booth and the usual apathy sinkng in once the campaigns start going (getting negative and promises start getting un-promised etc).
relying on the kids is like relying on spitballs to hold off the Huns.
-
I would disagree with you. New York, Massachussetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are all pretty much in the Obama column right now. I don't care how badly Obama flops, those states aren't going to McCain.
Key words there, "right now."
You're making the mistake of assuming the political situation is static, that it's going to be the same in November as it is right now.
By saying right now, I meant that you could take at least those states to the bank. You're right, anything could change, but if they do, I see no reason why Vermont is any more likely to stay with Obama than all the other states that are at least as liberal as it is.
-
If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.
Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election? I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.
ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless
and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope
"kids" actually showed up in record numbers in 2004, they were just swallowed up by an overall huge turnout, including by our base. basically, to actually make a difference, what they need to hope for is that the kids show up, but everyone else stays home.
you sure about that ? my recollection at the time was that it was about the same as a percentage of potential ones. partly a matter of college kids going back to school and no longer near the voting booth and the usual apathy sinkng in once the campaigns start going (getting negative and promises start getting un-promised etc).
relying on the kids is like relying on spitballs to hold off the Huns.
well, it was inarguably "up", but like a lot of things how much it was up depends on how you want to dice the numbers.
as I recall, 18-24 was up double digits, but 18-29 was up even more than that. depends on what you want to call "young", I suppose. but yeah, turnout was was up across the board in 2004, including the younger demographics. now, was it the tsunami that they were predicting? no, probably not. will it be this election cycle? hard to say. the dems have been predicting a flood of 18-2(whatever) year olds for the last three elections. the numbers in the primaries were up dramatically for that demographic, but trying to extrapolate the turnout for the general election based on primary turnout is fraught with peril.
but I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily write them off as "no shows" at this stage.
-
If they have to give up both these states, then they are beginning to see they cannot win.
Isn't it the case that if a candidate wins 2 out of the three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, that they've always won the general election? I've heard it said, but haven't taken the time to research it.
ergo the OTHER obamatron mantra that the old electoral map is meaningless
and that the kids will actually vote this time
and that all you need is hope
"kids" actually showed up in record numbers in 2004, they were just swallowed up by an overall huge turnout, including by our base. basically, to actually make a difference, what they need to hope for is that the kids show up, but everyone else stays home.
you sure about that ? my recollection at the time was that it was about the same as a percentage of potential ones. partly a matter of college kids going back to school and no longer near the voting booth and the usual apathy sinkng in once the campaigns start going (getting negative and promises start getting un-promised etc).
relying on the kids is like relying on spitballs to hold off the Huns.
well, it was inarguably "up", but like a lot of things how much it was up depends on how you want to dice the numbers.
as I recall, 18-24 was up double digits, but 18-29 was up even more than that. depends on what you want to call "young", I suppose. but yeah, turnout was was up across the board in 2004, including the younger demographics. now, was it the tsunami that they were predicting? no, probably not. will it be this election cycle? hard to say. the dems have been predicting a flood of 18-2(whatever) year olds for the last three elections. the numbers in the primaries were up dramatically for that demographic, but trying to extrapolate the turnout for the general election based on primary turnout is fraught with peril.
but I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily write them off as "no shows" at this stage.
2000 http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-542/tab04b.xls (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-542/tab04b.xls)
2002 http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-552/tab05-2.xls (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-552/tab05-2.xls)
2004 http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab05-2.xls (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab05-2.xls)
2000 tot 23915 reg 12122 voted 8635
2002 tot 27277 reg 10470 voted 4697
2004 tot 27808 reg 14334 voted 11639
ok, when you're right you're right, percentages high
but numbers low, perhaps thats what I was remembering
but even if you quadruple them would that change anything ?
BHO is going to have to have every single black show up and vote 90+% for him to have a chance at offsetting what he loses because he's who he is.
2004 tot
-
No way will he win Florida...the majority of South Floridians will go to McCain because of his age (we have lots of senior citizens) and because he's not Black.
The cubans in Little Havana will vote R.
As for North Florida, NO WAY will they go Democratic...they still fly the Confederate Flag on the turnpike, have a "warning" sign after the GA/FLA border which states "Floridians will use force if you tresspass" (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist). We are strong protectors of the 2nd ammendment here..no way will a socialist stand a chance.
-
No way will he win Florida...the majority of South Floridians will go to McCain because of his age (we have lots of senior citizens) and because he's not Black.
The cubans in Little Havana will vote R.
As for North Florida, NO WAY will they go Democratic...they still fly the Confederate Flag on the turnpike, have a "warning" sign after the GA/FLA border which states "Floridians will use force if you tresspass" (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist). We are strong protectors of the 2nd ammendment here..no way will a socialist stand a chance.
Yeah, the Pan Handle and South Ga might as well be their own state. :-)
I'll be down in Mexico Beach this weekend on a fishing trip. :rocker2:
-
No way will he win Florida...the majority of South Floridians will go to McCain because of his age (we have lots of senior citizens) and because he's not Black.
The cubans in Little Havana will vote R.
As for North Florida, NO WAY will they go Democratic...they still fly the Confederate Flag on the turnpike, have a "warning" sign after the GA/FLA border which states "Floridians will use force if you tresspass" (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist). We are strong protectors of the 2nd ammendment here..no way will a socialist stand a chance.
Yeah, the Pan Handle and South Ga might as well be their own state. :-)
I'll be down in Mexico Beach this weekend on a fishing trip. :rocker2:
North Georgia wouldn't vote for Obama either. I have a vacation house up there in Dawson county. I'll give someone $20 if they can find a black shopper at the Walmart off of 400...