Atlanta Beltline - Page 9

dante2308 · #**161** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Yep. The polls are skewed in favor of Democrats (especially this year), and the electoral college is skewed in favor of Republicans.

Stop making up things!

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

The map is not skewed towards the republicans!

dante2308 · #**162** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Obama and his handlers know he can't hack it, especially not against McCain.

Quote a source or just say you are making things up! I at least have the decency to be informed!

Fiorenza · #**163** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:08 AM**

Small population states historically tend to vote Republican. Maybe not this year. They have more electoral votes per capita.

Ever hear of the Bradley effect?

dante2308 · #**164** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Small population states historically tend to vote Republican. Maybe not this year. They have more electoral votes per capita.

Ever hear of the Bradley effect?

Yes I have heard. Funny of you to make that argument about race again. If you really believe that McCain is going to win on pure racism alone, then have a happy night! Now would you even address any actual facts on the ground? Obama out performs his polls most of the time and democrats can expect a higher turnout this year due to the new excitement. As exciting as McCain is... I just don't think it compares.

Fiorenza · #**165** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Quote a source or just say you are making things up!

It's just the opinion of myself and others. Maybe we're wrong. Let's find out!

Fiorenza · #**166** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:12 AM**

Here's a fact: There is something called the Bradley Effect.

dante2308 · #**167** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

It's just the opinion of myself and others. Maybe we're wrong. Let's find out!

I can respect you clarifying your opinions, but they amount to idle chatter. I am one to argue a point with data and facts. I guess that is the main issue we are having here. I am willing to back up every single statement I make with data almost instantly... it makes this whole back and forth like trying to catch a fly. The points keep moving around and are so elusive to begin with that I can't just nail the sucker no matter how logical my arguments.

dante2308 · #**168** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Here's a fact: There is something called the Bradley Effect.

Please show how that came about during the primaries. Obama is not Bill bradly. If you do that I will show how Obama outperformed in the primaries. Then we will be getting somewhere.

Fiorenza · #**169** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:16 AM**

Let's put it this way: Obama's race is clearly an issue, whether you or I like it or not. Isn't it interesting that early on Hillary did far better in secret ballots than in open caucuses?

dante2308 · #**170** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Let's put it this way: Obama's race is clearly an issue, whether you or I like it or not. Isn't it interesting that early on Hillary did far better in secret ballots than in open caucuses?

Secret ballots and open caucuses? First off, I think you mean caucuses and primaries. Secondly, I would like you to look at the primaries in Virgina, Wisconsin, and Maryland and make your point again. Obama's strength in the caucus states is directly proportional to the strength of his organization and the fact that Clinton did not even attempt to campaign in the caucus states on Super Tuesday. Could you explain to me why Obama won Wisconsin by 14 points when he was down 14 points in the polls?

dante2308 · #**171** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:23 AM**

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there. I don't think you are going to respond to my points directly and I don't think Obama needs your faith in him. If you are so sure he is going to lose, just sit back and watch him collapse. Have fun now! I'm going out on the town!

Fiorenza · #**172** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:25 AM**

Virginia, Wisconsin, Maryland, Georgia, and South Carolina all have heavy black populations, and they turned out in disproportionate numbers to vote for Obama. That's the opposite of the Bradley Effect. That happens too. Is it a good thing?

Andrea · #**173** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:25 AM**

At least McCain can put his feet up here in Georgia. A Republican would really have to do something crazy to lose in this state.

Personally I think McCain will stand a decent chance of hanging in there in the debates with Obama. Granted, he's no orator, but he's a smart man who's been around a long time. The main area where he'll have trouble is trying to defend his current positions on social issues like limitations on the rights of gay people, his anti-choice stance on abortion, and his opposition to medical research. It's pretty tough for anybody to come up with coherent arguments for imposing their moral judgments on others. Otherwise he should be all right.

dante2308 · #**174** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Virginia, Wisconsin, Maryland, Georgia, and South Carolina all have heavy black populations, and they turned out in disproportionate numbers to vote for Obama. That's the opposite of the Bradley Effect. That happens too.

Wisconsin, the black state? It is 91.5% white buddy. Obama won the white vote in Virgina as well you know. Please explain that to me in a way that I can understand.

Fiorenza · #**175** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:29 AM**

Quote:

It is 91.5% white buddy

Then let's call it the Liberal State Effect! Also, keep in mind if a disproportionate number of a 10% subgroup turn out to vote in one party's primary for one candidate, it can have a strong effect.

dante2308 · #**176** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Then let's call it the Liberal State Effect!

Fair enough, at least you aren't just playing race politics with that argument. Now it is clear why you though Obama had no chance outside the south despite his overwhelming victories in the top ten whitest states.... But I think you need to realize that. He won the top ten whitest states. If anything you are consistent. You argument boils down to "blackies can't win!"

dante2308 · #**177** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea

At least McCain can put his feet up here in Georgia. A Republican would really have to do something crazy to lose in this state.

Personally I think McCain will stand a decent chance of hanging in there in the debates with Obama. Granted, he's no orator, but he's a smart man who's been around a long time. The main area where he'll have trouble is trying to defend his current positions on social issues like limitations on the rights of gay people, his anti-choice stance on abortion, and his opposition to medical research. It's pretty tough for anybody to come up with coherent arguments for imposing their moral judgments on others. Otherwise he should be all right.

The New York Times has a lot of new info on what to expect from Obama's general election campaign.

-- He could compete in up to 25 states including some very red areas like Georgia, Alaska, and Montana. If Obama does run a 25 state campaign, it is going to present a huge financial problem to McCain who will either have to thin out his resources to compete or risk upsets in several states. It will also make him much weaker in Ohio since he will already be a huge financial underdog and every dollar he has to spend in, say, Georgia, is one less dollar he can spend in Ohio.

Fiorenza · #**178** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:36 AM**

If I'm not wrong, the top ten whitest states happen to be the top ten most liberal states! So, Obama's bases are blacks across the board and young, white liberals. It's a race and generational thing. McCain has a shot at older white libs.

dante2308 · #**179** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

If I'm not wrong, the top ten whitest states happen to be the top ten most liberal states! So, Obama's bases are blacks across the board and young, white liberals. It's a race and generational thing. McCain has a shot at older white libs.

No, the top ten whitest states are not the most liberal states in general. States like Colorado went overwhemingly for Obama and are polling well for him right now despite the fact that bush won the state by 5 or more points twice. In the whitest states, Obama won a broad spectrum of voters. The only places that racism reared it's ugly head were the south/mountain region and some hispanics out west and in Texas. Everywhere else was easy picking for Obama.

Fiorenza · #**180** Posted **Jun 9, 2008, 3:44 AM**

I know Obama people would like to think Obama has a chance in Georgia, but he doesn't. Not even with Barr in the mix. Not even with blacks turning out in disproportionate numbers. Those Obama people don't know Georgia very well. Georgians turn out lightly for primaries and heavily for general elections. Don't expect many white Georgians to vote for Obama, and a large part of it is racial. Lest you think ME a racist, know I'd gladly vote for Herman Cain for governor and J.C. Watts for President if they were on the ballot. But many white Georgians wouldn't. However, they have elected blacks to statewide office, but only if those blacks come across as basically non-partisan. That's not gonna happen at the presidential level.