TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why should Hillary leave the race?
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes...

The DLC strategy doesn't equal a majority of electoral votes. If you don't believe me, just ask Al Gore or John Kerry.

quote:

We can both argue til we're blue in the face. You can make speculations and I can make speculations. All the Republicans (all few dozen thousand of them) that came out to vote for him in the Western states, I honestly don't think they'll make this crazy difference in November. I appreciate Mr. Opus for a very informative reply last page about what more is at stake within these states (not just electoral votes), but I still can't see it affecting the presidential run.

Those independents and Republicans that voted in the Democratic primary could have voted in the Republican primary instead. But they didn't. Because they would rather vote for Barack Obama than the candidates on the Republican ballot.

quote:

For every 5 or 6 or 7 electoral-vote state Obama **MIGHT** take in November (purple states), according to you at least, he puts at risk a Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan, etc.

You've yet to show that Hillary is better positioned to win Michigan than Barack is. I know you hate polls, so I'll refrain from showing you the ones that have him polling better than her in Michigan. And Florida was never contested either, so that's unsubstantiated as well. And I'm not sure what this business about putting Florida at risk is, because it's pretty solidly red.

As to PA, he's polling dead even with McCain. I'll take my chances there against a candidate that continually screws over the working class like John McCain does. McCain also just said that women don't deserve equal pay as men. Again, I'll take my chances among the moderate women that voted for Hillary against Barack.

quote:

As far as Penn. is concerned, GHB said it himself, it's a racist state! Sad but true, that could make a huge impact in November. We don't know!!! That's the thing. If Clinton wins what we won in 2004 plus an extra state here and there (an Ohio or a Nevada maybe?), there we go!....

Wait, did you just turn your argument into: "we should vote for Hillary because Barack is black and America is racist"?

quote:

Don't forget, there's McCain on the other side of things who can't wait to put a little effort into taking a Pennsylvania or Florida or Michigan, AND HE CAN. He'd be more than glad to hand a New Mexico or Iowa Obama's way.

Obama is at least as competitive in Michigan as Hillary (see above), Florida hasn't gone Dem in quite a while and is trending more red, and Penn. is dead even. Why is Obama at such a disadvantage in those states? You keep saying it but you don't substantiate that claim.

Obama puts a dozen states into play that Hillary does not -- North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Georgia, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Nebraska, New Mexico, Delaware, Texas (!). Who says he has to lose PA to win two of those? Winning PA + GA + NC = winning the election. Regardless of what happens in the other seven contested states (not to mention Florida or Ohio).

But more importantly, it makes a McCain campaign that is already financially vulnerable, have to play catch-up all across the country in states that were once considered GOP locks. Obama won't have to contest any Democratic strongholds, regardless of your insinuation about New Jersey, New York, and California.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Idaho, North Dakota, and Minnesota, where the delegate count measured as follows with Obama's followed by Hillary's: ID - 15-3 MN - 48-24 ND - 8-5 That's a grand total of 39 delegates net. Big change in the count there. About the same as her superdelegate lead right now.

Precisely.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco haha Well, way to put your foot in Mr. Opus' mouth. Those were the states he listed as Obama having a good chance at winning in November. So no, that was someone on your end of the argument cherry-picking, and me disagreeing intelligently with by going one by one with numbers on. I don't know where you're from but there are no half-days in New York, not to mention I commute out of state, sorry. Standing in line in November means going to the polls and taking 15 minutes tops out of my day before I go to work (and night-school later). Going to a 4-hour caucus is in no way similar to that. I'm glad my state had primaries, that's all. I wish all states had them, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama saw the advantage of them, it's not really important. As far as parcitipating in "democracy in action", if we were smart, we'd do like several other countries do and make elections a Saturday-thru-Monday thing. Of course, keep the media out of doing exit polling, but that's a better system, imo. I repeat my previous argument that, if you expect everyone to be somewhere at a certain hour for several hours, that's wishful thinking. Although I also go to college, on top of working, not many people have the option of "cutting class"... once again, it's called Blue Collar America. Go home early while working in the mines or in the factories or at the construction job, see if you have a job the next day, or someone to cover your shift.

Caucuses typically take about an hour. Or at least they did in Iowa, Nevada, Texas, and Minnesota (the states where I had friends that worked them this year -- all for Hillary as a matter of fact).

In my precinct in Ohio in 2004, it was a four hour line to vote.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I don't remember mentioning Minnesota? I listed specific states (and I could be wrong) but none of them included Minnesota.

You didn't make the following incorrect assertion at Apr-25-2008 22:48

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco quote: Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov 3. Democratic strongholds? You mean the ones we're going to win no matter who the nominee is? Like California and New York? Yeah, I'll take a candidate that will broaden the electoral map to include places like South Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, etc. Thanks. 4. To preempt you on the "battleground state" argument the mainstream media is in love with at the moment. Yes, Hillary won in Ohio and PA. That doesn't mean Barack would lose to McCain. In fact, ironically, he polls better than Hillary does in a general election matchup in PA. That said, Obama has won South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, Wisconsin, etc. - all "battleground states." See, that's where you're wrong. Every Obama supporter likes to put two and two together, although, it's not always so easy. Think about it. 10,000 to 80,000 people are showing up to the caucuses in these red/battleground states of maybe a few million people.

EDITED to reflect incorrect cite of quoted post

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy You didn't make the following incorrect assertion at 15:36 on April 25th See, that's where you're wrong. Every Obama supporter likes to put two and two together, although, it's not always so easy. Think about it. 10,000 to 80,000 people are showing up to the caucuses in these red/battleground states of maybe a few million people.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, those numbers would have been correct for the Republican caucuses - but democratic turnout in the caucuses this year has more than doubled the GOP - yet another sign that Obama has energized the base more than any other candidate.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Also, ask yourself this: how many people are voting for Hillary because they remember Bill's presidency fondly? More than a few I would imagine.

My mother freely admitted that she did in PA.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I don't know where you're from but there are no half-days in New York, not to mention I commute out of state, sorry. Standing in line in November means going to the polls and taking 15 minutes tops out of my day before I go to work (and night-school later). Going to a 4-hour caucus is in no way similar to that. I'm glad my state had primaries, that's all. I wish all states had them, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama saw the advantage of them, it's not really important.

You do realize that most caucuses are done in the evening hours, where work isn't a major consideration for the normal 9-5 crowd. I don't know if you've ever tried to contact people outside of NYC for work reasons, but it's pretty much impossible in "afterhours." If cutting into your American Idol viewing time prohibited your from attending a caucus, tough shit.

Not that it mattered for NY, but I couldn't vote in NY because I was called out of state at the last minute for work, denying me the ability to vote at all because it was too late to absentee ballot.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The DLC strategy doesn't equal a majority of electoral votes. If you don't believe me, just ask Al Gore or John Kerry.

I think I'll ask the Supreme Court about Al Gore's situation. And John Kerry... well... he wasn't as strong a candidate as either Hillary or Barack would be.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Those independents and Republicans that voted in the Democratic primary could have voted in the Republican primary instead. But they didn't. Because they would rather vote for Barack Obama than the candidates on the Republican ballot.

Or there was no one with a chance left on tthe Republican ballot. We'll see for sure in November, if Obama is the candidate, how many Republicans go for him. Republican family friends of my family went with their friends to vote for Obama because they hate the Clintons that much. Not only that, but they thought Obama has no chance against McCain. Obviously, this is anecdotal, this is based on experiences of the people around us and no indication of how widespread it is, but we're not alone in thinking this way. GHB earlier said Pennsylvania voted for Hillary because it's a racist state. I'll go on a limb of my own and say that the "Republicans for Obama" numbers are fudged and we have no indication how many of them are going to go for him in November. For all we know, they drop him like a hot potato by then.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/da...5117.guest.html

Rush Limbaugh himself told people to "pimp" themselves out for Hillary. Once again, not saying THIS IS THE CASE (jeez, I have to put my disclaimers otherwise I'm torn apart), just saying it's possible and kinda freaky that anything like this is going on, no matter how small-scale. Sadly, the open primaries and caucuses system allows this.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And Florida was never contested either, so that's unsubstantiated as well. And I'm not sure what this business about putting Florida at risk is, because it's pretty solidly red.

Tell that to Al Gore (see above). Had the numbers not been smudged over there, the triangulation would have worked very well for him had he only gained that state, but that's a discussion for another time. As for Hillary in Florida, a little something I posted two pages ago:

quote:

Obama has also fared poorly among Latino and Jewish voters in every primary held so far. This is of consequence most notably in Florida, which has 27 electoral votes. In 2000, Al Gore won 67 percent of the vote in Broward County and 62 percent in Palm Beach County -- both have large Jewish populations. In this year's Florida primary, Obama lost those counties to Clinton by 57 percent to 33 percent and 61 percent to 27 percent. No Democrat can carry Florida without big margins in Broward and Palm Beach. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...clinton_an.html

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Wait, did you just turn your argument into: "we should vote for Hillary because Barack is black and America is racist"?

Exactly what I said, man, you caught me!! C'mon man, someone said Pennsylvania went for Hillary because it's racist, and I merely used that to show he might just lose that state, according to the person's rationale. Don't put words in my mouth.

And as far as New Jersey, New York, and Cali, I guess I'll take back my statement about them being a tought fight for Obama. New York and Cali, I guess he wouldn't have a problem in, but Jersey, don't underestimate it. There's a lot of Latinos here and they don't like black people. Don't play the race card on me again, just calling it out how it is. Not to mention, McCain is pretty strong here among moderate Democrats. It's pretty shaky ground here, as well as some other Dem states, that's all I'm saying once. We won't know anything for sure until November, so let's agree on that at least.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy My mother freely admitted that she did in PA.

I have four friends that work or have worked for the Hillary campaign this cycle. Three joined the campaign because of Bill, and the fourth did so because she wants to see a woman elected President. None of them joined for a substantive issue-based reason.

Eco can bait on the basis of race or "rock star" persona all he wants, but it's a well-documented fact that many Hillary supporters are in her corner because of Bill - is it any surprise that he makes nearly as many campaign stops as she does? Or that nearly as many campaign reporters follow his schedule? Or that the majority of controversies in this campaign were begun by something Bill said? Why is he relevant in a way that Michelle Obama is not? Because a large number of people believe they're voting for his third term in some way.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I have four friends that work or have worked for the Hillary campaign this cycle. Three joined the campaign because of Bill, and the fourth did so because she wants to see a woman elected President. None of them joined for a substantive issue-based reason. Eco can bait on the basis of race or "rock star" persona all he wants, but it's a well-documented fact that many Hillary supporters are in her corner because of Bill - is it any surprise that he makes nearly as many campaign stops as she does? Or that nearly as many campaign reporters follow his schedule? Or that the majority of controversies in this campaign were begun by something Bill said? Why is he relevant in a way that Michelle Obama is not? Because a large number of people believe they're voting for his third term in some way.

Not gunna disagree with you here. Both candidates have very different appeal to their "fan-base", if you will, and you summed it up nicely (for better or worse, for either candidate). I won't disagree with you here haha

As for your friends, well, we all have the same stories. 98% of my school is going for Obama probably and not one of them know one thing he's done, or plans to do. Someone did a "Man On The Street" article about it in the paper here haha It was funny...

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco There's a lot of Latinos here and they don't like black people. Don't play the race card on me again, just calling it out how it is.

For fuck's sake, shut up. That is so categorically false it is ridiculous.

If you're going to continue to make egregious accusations and insinuations it would behoove you to post something to support them.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For fuck's sake, shut up. That is so categorically false it is ridiculous. If you're going to continue to make egregious accusations and insinuations it would behoove you to post something to support them.

GroundHogBoy said Hillary won in Penn. because people there, his area, are racist. Fair enough, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. You didn't attack him then. I'm making the same perceptions about the people around here. I live here, you know. I'm not making statements about your homestate. Wait, let me pull up a poll of the Latinos in this area that are racist, and I'll get back to you, dumbass.

Not to mention, read up, it's not some big secret that Hillary wins large majorities of Latinos, I just posted an article in the last page about it.

Also, for the record, I'm half Hispanic, my entire neighborhood is Hispanic, all my friends past and present are Hispanic, as are/were their families. At times, they seem more racist against black people than any white people I've met, especially Cubans, which are the largest, most educated and prosperous of the Hispanics around this area. In the past, many have gone for Republicans, as they are very conservative. Also, they come out in droves to vote and have a very strong way of organizing when campaigns and elections come around. As a matter of fact, both Obama and Hillary came here twice each. They came earlier on to the more African-American neighborhoods of Newark and southside Jersey City. And then they both came only a mile up to get the Hispanic vote. It's the most densely populated area in the state and whoever wins in Hudson County wins the state. There's some justification for my argument, happy?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco GroundHogBoy said Hillary won in Penn. because people there, his area, are racist. Fair enough, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. You didn't attack him then. I'm making the same perceptions about the people around here. I live here, you know. I'm not making statements about your homestate. Wait, let me pull up a poll of the Latinos in this area that are racist, and I'll get back to you, dumbass. Not to mention, read up, it's not some big secret that Hillary wins large majorities of Latinos, I just posted an article in the last page about it.

I apologize for the harsh tone - I'd thought we had this exact same argument in this thread earlier, but it seems it was a different thread. I'll post the exact same thing I posted then:

quote:

The Latino vote is pro-Clinton, not anti-Obama It�s not racism that�s been making the difference, it�s a 16-year head start. By Matt A. Barreto and Ricardo Ram�rez February 7, 2008 The results of Tuesday's primaries brought a renewed and vigorous debate about the Latino vote and the "Latino gap" for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). States such as California, Illinois, New York, Arizona and New Mexico have very large Latino electorates and were very important battlegrounds. Raoul Contreras claims in his Blowback article "The Bradley effect is still in effect" that Latinos will not vote for a black candidate. The empirical evidence does not match his opinions, and the results from Super Tuesday and other important elections demonstrate Latino willingness to vote for African American candidates. Furthermore, the Latino vote in 2008 should be viewed as a pro-Clinton vote, not an anti-Obama or an anti-black vote, as Contreras and others have suggested. Without a doubt, Contreras' claims are not supported with credible evidence. It is incorrect to equate Latino support for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008 with anti-Obama or anti-black voting patterns. In multiple national surveys and in our own polling among Latinos in Nevada and California, we find that the Clinton advantage is driven primarily by her eight years as first lady and seven years in the Senate. By contrast, in April of last year, a national survey of Latino registered voters found that 35% had no opinion about Obama, compared with only 8% for Clinton. Even as recently as mid-January, the Field Poll reported that 27% of Latinos in California had "no opinion" about Obama. In short, while Obama has become well known in a relatively short time among political observers, he did not rise to national prominence among Latinos until this campaign. Moreover, this name-recognition advantage for Clinton was enhanced by a strong and aggressive advertising and outreach effort by her campaign and a string of high-profile endorsements. She has hired an independent Latino pollster and aired significantly more Spanish language radio and television ads. This must be contrasted with the Obama campaign's anemic and particularly ineffective outreach effort to the Latino segment of the electorate. Even Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a prominent Latino supporter of Obama, has criticized the presidential candidate for insufficient outreach to Latinos. In short, there are many reasons why Clinton enjoys a large advantage among Latino voters, and none of them has anything to do with racism. The claim, then, that her support is somehow evidence of Latino unwillingness to support African American candidates is wrong on its face. Latino voters have demonstrated strong support for African American candidates in the past, across a variety of circumstances. Harold Washington, David Dinkins, Wellington Webb and Ron Kirk were all elected as mayors of major American cities with Latino vote shares from 70% to 80%. More recently African American mayors have won a majority of the Latino vote in elections against white women. In Cleveland's 2005 mayoral contest, Frank Jackson won an estimated 65% of the Latino vote, defeating Jane Campbell. In Inglewood, Roosevelt Dorn won more than 70% of the Latino vote to defeat Judy Dunlap. Contreras is wrong to suggest that that Maxine Waters' congressional district is a poor example of Latino voting for black candidates because more than 80% of Latinos voted for Waters in 2006. Waters herself has stated in a National Public Radio interview that, "somebody said that Latinos wouldn't vote for a black. They vote for me all the time. There are any number of instances where our districts are majority Latino .. .and they vote over and over. I just don't see that." Obama himself has a strong record of winning Latino votes. In 2000, when Obama challenged incumbent Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for 1st Congressional District in Illinois, he won more Latino votes than African American votes. In 2004, when he ran for the U.S. Senate Democratic nomination in Illinois, Obama received more Latino votes than Latino candidate Gerry Chico. Claims that Latinos will not vote for Obama are clearly false. In 1973, when Tom Bradley was elected mayor of Los Angeles, he lost among Latinos, and the punditry then, as now, speculated that Latinos would not vote for a black candidate. But Bradley's political skills and the inherent shared interests of Latino voters and the Bradley coalition reversed this trend. Despite Contreras' anecdote that his grandfather voted against Bradley in 1982, Bradley won an estimated 70% of the Latino vote in his gubernatorial contest. Over 40% of Latino and African American Republicans voted for Bradley, compared with only 15% of white Republicans. Returning to 2008, Super Tuesday offers many insights into the Latino vote. In California, exit polls gave Clinton 67% of the Latino vote compared with 32% for Obama. However, Obama did considerably better among Latinos in Connecticut (53%), Illinois (51%) and Arizona (42%). We should be careful to make sweeping generalizations on the basis of individual observations. Even in California, where much was made of the Kennedy endorsements and Latino town hall rallies held by Obama, Clinton carried a 2-1 advantage. Yet, according to Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll, 55% of all California Latinos (Democrats and Republicans) held a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with just 18% unfavorable. Further, an exit poll by Loyola Marymount University found that 93% of Latinos stated that the country was ready to elect a black president, even though 67% of Latinos voted for Clinton. The point is to be careful of assuming that racism shapes Latino vote preferences. The Clintons have now campaigned nationally for the Latino vote since 1992. In 2007, Hillary Clinton named a Latina Democratic consultant, Patti Solis Doyle, as her national campaign manager. Further, she received early Latino endorsements from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, Sen. Robert Menendez in New Jersey and many other prominent Latinos across the country. In contrast, Obama, who has courted the Latino vote vigorously over the last week, has 16 years of ground to make up against the Clintons. Matt A. Barreto, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Washington, Seattle, and Ricardo Ram�rez, an assistant professor political science at USC, are leading experts on Latino public opinion and voting patterns and have published more than 20 research articles on Latino voting behavior in leading political science journals.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,6253659.story

quote:

Does Obama Have A Catholic Problem? 11 Apr 2008 02:49 pm "Amazingly oversimplistic." Indeed, my mention of Obama's "Catholic problem" caused immediate cranial vasodilation in Chicago today, and so I've decided to explore the topic a little further. The raw exit polling is quite clear: Hillary Clinton does better among voters who say they are Catholic than Barack Obama. But a point raised by the Obama campaign is valid. There is nothing inherent in being Catholic that pushes a Democrat or independent to either candidate. Indeed, there is a correlation in states above the Mason-Dixon line between white, working class voters and the Roman Catholic religion. It is therefore unsurprising that Clinton does better among Catholics. Indeed, one could project Clinton's performance level among Catholics simply by looking at socioeconomic variables. Does this force work bidirectionally? What identity claim most impacts a vote? Socioeconomic? Or religious? The evidence, so far, is that religion plays less a role than economics. The data appears to show that the demogrpahic groups that Obama has the most trouble with are disproportionately Catholic; the groups that form Obama's base are disproportionately not Catholic. (Obama won Catholics in Vermont; he lost them in Rhode Island. Catholicism in those two states is not all that different.) Now -- the perception that Obama has a Catholic problem is nothing to skip church over. One way to reach white working class voters is to engage them through their religious identity, as Obama's Catholic advisory council is doing. And, of course, the very idea that Obama has a Catholic problem becomes as poisonous as an actual Catholic problem if his campaign cannot effectively rebut the charge.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com...atholic_pro.php

In any case, all of this becomes pretty irrelevant when you keep in mind that the exit polls that you are basing your argument off contain two DEMOCRATIC choices... when faced with a democratic and republican candidate, the numbers will turn out quite differently.

36% of Americans are pro-life on abortion. 24% are Catholic. 23% are Protestant Evangelicals (nearly all of whom voted for Bush in 2004). You do the math. The Catholic vote was split 50-50 in 2004, and would be split 50-50 in 2008 aside from the fact that 72% of Americans (basically all non-Evangelicals) disapprove of the job the current Republican administration has done.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I live here, you know. I'm not making statements about your homestate.

Your statement was that Latinos hate black people.

quote:

Wait, let me pull up a poll of the Latinos in this area that are racist, and I'll get back to you, dumbass.

I'd love to see data that supports this. Bring it on.

And fyi, if you show me a poll that says 55% of Latinos voted for Hillary, I will show you a poll that says 55% of women voted for Hillary followed by my conclusion that "women hate male people."

quote:

Not to mention, read up, it's not some big secret that Hillary wins large majorities of Latinos, I just posted an article in the last page about it.

In some states. Could that be because Bill has established ties among Latinos? Hmm.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I apologize for the harsh tone - I'd thought we had this exact same argument in this thread earlier, but it seems it was a different thread.

No problemo, no harm done. I'll post the edit I just made to my previous post, which I think is a good indication of the types of Latinos that vote and background info you may see as more informative to support my statement:

quote:

Also, for the record, I'm half Hispanic, my entire neighborhood is Hispanic, all my friends past and present are Hispanic, as are/were their families. At times, they seem more racist against black people than any white people I've met, especially Cubans, which are the largest, most educated and prosperous of the Hispanics around this area. In the past, many have gone for Republicans, as they are very conservative. Also, they come out in droves to vote and have a very strong way of organizing when campaigns and elections come around. As a matter of fact, both Obama and Hillary came here twice each. They came earlier on to the more African-American neighborhoods of Newark and southside Jersey City. And then they both came only a mile up to get the Hispanic vote. It's the most densely populated area in the state and whoever wins in Hudson County wins the state.

Yes, it is a general statement, but when pertaining to my area which is 1) where I was born, brought up, and schooled, and 2) the largest population density in New Jersey, I think this sort of generality has some bearing. And of course, I in no way implied this is the case throughout the rest of the 50 states. One Latino community has different roots and countries and nationalities than another, etc. I hope that explains more where I'm coming from, RE: New Jersey.

Yikes, time to get to work haha... Thanks for keeping me on my feet, even if we do disagree; it's always better to disagree and have a good conversation with someone who's informed, than have a 10 second conversation with someone who knows nothing more than that he's voting for Obama "because of his vision", or with a Billary supporter, for that matter haha... Have a nice week!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco haha Well, way to put your foot in Mr. Opus' mouth.

Bleh. I just ate some Jamaican jerk chicken. No need for toe-jam as desert.......

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco For every 5 or 6 or 7 electoral-vote state Obama **MIGHT** take in November (purple states), according to you at least, he puts at risk a Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan, etc. As far as Penn. is concerned, GHB said it himself, it's a racist state! Sad but true, that could make a huge impact in November. We don't know!!! That's the thing. If Clinton wins what we won in 2004 plus an extra state here and there (an Ohio or a Nevada maybe?), there we go!...

First, the difference wasn't that huge that I don't think that he'll lose PA. While I realize that many Republicans didn't vote because it was a finished nomination.

Also, I hate to ruin the argument that Obama supporters are giving to say that he's been converting Independents and Republicans who've switched to Democrats, but I will: Some of these people are switching to vote for Hillary. In PA, you could switch parties as late as 3/24/08, long after Super Tuesday when Obama had pulled ahead, you could vote for Hillary to skew things. Rush Limbaugh has long supported this policy because it's a good, devious way to win in November. Hillary has a 54% unfavorable rating. That doesn't fare too well for her election chances.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes electoral votes...

That's funny since Bill used the "if Democrats were Republicans (whose election process much more closely resembles the electoral system), Hillary would be winning" argument. And sadly, I'll admit Jon Stewart is no genius, because that was the first thing I thought when I heard him make the argument.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I think I'll ask the Supreme Court about Al Gore's situation. And John Kerry... well... he wasn't as strong a candidate as either Hillary or Barack would be.

Kerry's "unfavorable ratings" were nowhere near Hillary's.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco At times, they seem more racist against black people than any white people I've met, especially Cubans, which are the largest, most educated and prosperous of the Hispanics around this area. In the past, many have gone for Republicans, as they are very conservative. Also, they come out in droves to vote and have a very strong way of organizing when campaigns and elections come around.

You do realize that the Republican stance on Cuba contributes significantly to this. If many of the Cubans who are in Jersey were happy with the communist status of Cuba, they would have remained in Cuba. This is one of the reasons why there are so many issues regarding this election with Floridians (whose votes shouldn't count anyhow because they broke the rules for the nominating party).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov See above for total lack of substantiation to a pretty major claim.

substantiate that in the general election obama will get republicans, as well as more independents than clinton. It's pure conjecture to think that his success with those groups against a fellow democrat in the democratic race will follow in the general election against a republican. in addition, i'm sure there is a large group of conservative democrats that support clinton and won't vote obama for the simple reason that he is black. whether we like it or not race is a relevant issue for many people.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For fuck's sake, shut up. That is so categorically false it is ridiculous. If you're going to continue to make egregious accusations and insinuations it would behoove you to post something to support them.

how exactly are you supposed to support that sort of statement? that's a real world observation that many people who live in these communities can see. People usually don't volunteer their prejudices for a college paper. In the real world people hate people and don't make it obvious for outsiders to monitor. if you don't think that there is a general discontent between the black community and the Hispanic community then you are delusional. perhaps your childhood in white Minnesota didn't expose you to that reality.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 substantiate that in the general election obama will get republicans, as well as more independents than clinton. It's pure conjecture to think that his success with those groups against a fellow democrat in the democratic race will follow in the general election against a republican. in addition, i'm sure there is a large group of conservative democrats that support clinton and won't vote obama for the simple reason that he is black. whether we like it or not race is a relevant issue for many people.

As I've said before, you have a choice between voting in the Democratic primary and the Republican primary. Up to and including Super Tuesday, both primaries were contested, and yet a greater number of independents voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary - those voters in greater numbers voted for Obama. They had a choice between voting for a Republican candidate or a Democratic candidate. Whether they vote for Hillary or for McCain is unknown, but it stands to reason that is a choice on an individual level and cannot be generalized as group behavior.

quote:

how exactly are you supposed to support that sort of statement? that's a real world observation that many people who live in these communities can see. People usually don't volunteer their prejudices for a college paper. In the real world people hate people and don't make it obvious for outsiders to monitor. if you don't think that there is a general discontent between the black community and the Hispanic community then you are delusional. perhaps your childhood in white Minnesota didn't expose you to that reality.

Sigh. See the article posted above.

To say that one ethnic group hates another ethnic group is painting with a pretty broad brush - and one that there is nothing but your own anecdotal observation to support. Obama won the Latino vote in Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois (before you naysay Illinois, perhaps you should think about discounting New York's results as well). For crying out loud, Hillary won the majority of blacks in New York and nearly in New Jersey as well - to think that it is a racial issue and not simply voting for the better known candidate... now that is delusional.

Also - you obviously don't know anything about my childhood. I won't make any blind inferences about yours.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov As I've said before, you have a choice between voting in the Democratic primary and the Republican primary. Up to and including Super Tuesday, both primaries were contested, and yet a greater number of independents voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary - those voters in greater numbers voted for Obama. They had a choice between voting for a Republican candidate or a Democratic candidate. Whether they vote for Hillary or for McCain is unknown, but it stands to reason that is a choice on an individual level and cannot be generalized as group behavior.

So how does that translate into independents not voting for hillary if obama loses? You claimed that obama means + republicans + independents, and hillary means + no republicans and + a few independents. while i can understand the theory, it doesn't necessarily translate. if you're going to call me out on an unsubstantiated claim then perhaps you should substantiate your claims.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Sigh. See the article posted above. To say that one ethnic group hates another ethnic group is painting with a pretty broad brush - and one that there is nothing but your own anecdotal observation to support. Obama won the Latino vote in Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois (before you naysay Illinois, perhaps you should think about discounting New York's results as well). For crying out loud, Hillary won the majority of blacks in New York and nearly in New Jersey as well - to think that it is a racial issue and not simply voting for the better known candidate... now that is delusional.

as for the article, i wasn't talking about the election (while i know this is an election thread). I was making a general statement that is based on personal observation. You can read all the washington post articles and new york times articles you want, but it won't give you a feel for what relations are like in the real world.

as for the election, clearly it is not entirely a racial issue or obama wouldn't be winning. but i'm sure in some way a republican will make it a racial issue, most likely with the rev wright stuff. There are certainly many Americans who still think on a racial level, and they will vote that way. Just because the media doesn't want to be politically incorrect and talk about race doesn't mean certain Americans discount race. If race was irrelevant then we would have more black and Hispanic people in power today.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Also - you obviously don't know anything about my childhood. I won't make any blind inferences about yours.

it wasn't really blind: Minnesota had 92% white population in 2000, which was probably higher before. The hispanic population was only 2.something% in 2000. It is highly probable that you didn't grow up in a neighborhood that was ethnically diverse. i'm just playing the statistics here.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 So how does that translate into independents not voting for hillary if obama loses? You claimed that obama means + republicans + independents, and hillary means + no republicans and + a few independents. while i can understand the theory, it doesn't necessarily translate. if you're going to call me out on an unsubstantiated claim then perhaps you should substantiate your claims.

Because prior to the Feb. 12 primaries (while there was a feasible choice between Republican and Democratic primaries), independents and republicans were voting for Obama, not Hillary. I didn't say they will all go back to McCain - only that a larger proportion will vote for Obama than for Hillary.

quote:

as for the article, i wasn't talking about the election (while i know this is an election thread). I was making a general statement that is based on personal observation. You can read all the washington post articles and new york times articles you want, but it won't give you a feel for what relations are like in the real world.

Good thing I used an article written by a sociologist and a political scientist and not a journalist then.

quote:

as for the election, clearly it is not entirely a racial issue or obama wouldn't be winning. but i'm sure in some way a republican will make it a racial issue, most likely with the rev wright stuff. There are certainly many Americans who still think on a racial level, and they will vote that way. Just because the media doesn't want to be politically incorrect and talk about race doesn't mean certain Americans discount race. If race was irrelevant then we would have more black and Hispanic people in power today.

For every American that thinks on a racial level, it appears that there are two that go "oh, we can't vote for the minority because someone else won't want to vote for him on the basis of race." Do you see the problem with that? Instead of losing one vote on the basis of his skin color, he suddenly loses three. And to risk being politically incorrect, I would offer that the majority of racists in this country wouldn't think about voting for a Democrat in the first place, regardless of whether it's Al Gore or Barack Obama.

quote:

it wasn't really blind: Minnesota had 92% white population in 2000, which was probably higher before. The hispanic population was only 2.something% in 2000. It is highly probable that you didn't grow up in a neighborhood that was ethnically diverse. i'm just playing the statistics here.

And as I said, you have absolutely no idea where I grew up.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I didn't say they will all go back to McCain - only that a larger proportion will vote for Obama than for Hillary.

support that! you have no idea that if obama loses those independents that supported obama wouldn't support hillary. Just because they initially voted for obama doesn't preclude them from supporting clinton. You are also suggesting that they will only vote if obama wins. support that claim. If independents are mad about the way the republicans ran the country the last 8 years why wouldn't they vote for clinton (who you admitted has nearly the same stance on most issues)?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Good thing I used an article written by a sociologist and a political scientist and not a journalist then.

i'm not going to argue about the accuracy of article because it doesn't even address what i was generally referring to.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov For every American that thinks on a racial level, it appears that there are two that go "oh, we can't vote for the minority because someone else won't want to vote for him on the basis of race." Do you see the problem with that? Instead of losing one vote on the basis of his skin color, he suddenly loses three. And to risk being politically incorrect, I would offer that the majority of racists in this country wouldn't think about voting for a Democrat in the first place, regardless of whether it's Al Gore or Barack Obama.

most racists in this country aren't obvious about it. i'm sure you hear these words thrown around all the time, "racially tolerant." That's exactly how people are, they just tolerate other races. I live in a very diverse community where it's just like that. People don't say they don't like black people, hispanic people, etc... But the fact is when the black kids walk down the street all eyes are on them. White people tolerate black people in my community but the idea of black people moving into my neighborhood certainly isn't accepted. That's the kind of racism there is today.

EDIT: I live in a city controlled by democrats with about 60% white people. I would say that most white people in my town are slightly racists. Also, race isn't the only issue that someone like that thinks about. That's might not be the overriding issue. Someone can be slightly racists and still be an environmentalist that believes in universal healthcare, and fair wages. Therefore, that person would be likely to vote democrat despite any racists feelings. The two thoughts aren't mutually exclusive. However, when race is thrown in the mix in the presidential race, i'm not sure which way they would go.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And as I said, you have absolutely no idea where I grew up.

you're absolutely right, but your response suggests my conclusion.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.