Electoral College Math

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What is this talk of racism against Obama? Obama gets ~ 90% of the black votes. Doesn’t Hillary have a better case at being the victim of racism?

No.

Remember? They used to all support Hillary over Obama. Things changed.

But,
yes there is racism against Obama.

When did black voters support Hillary over Obama? Before they ever heard of Obama?

But how were they racists when they overwhelmingly supported her?
(hint: they weren’t)

When all their choices were white people race really was not in play for many and some even refused to vote. Obama is getting black people to vote in record numbers based mostly on race.

Obama was a choice, and he’s black by half. So something changed their minds other than race.[/quote]

When did they change their minds? When was Hillary ahead in the black community?

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

Just Florida though? Yes lets just let every state decide when they want to vote, no organizational problems there…(Lets’s all vote first!)

Funny stuff.

Actually, I would be all for a one-day nationwide primary - I really don’t understand why the opinions of Iowans, New Hampshireites and South Carolinians should carry such weight…

They shouldn’t, nor should the party force people out of the race early when the race is close as it is with Hillary/Obama.

Probably why the party hasn’t.
[/quote]

What world do you live in?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

McWhorter and Loury parse the various reasons whites might vote against Obama - seems like there may actually be some non-racist bases for making such a radical decision…

100meters wrote:

Obviously there are some non-racist reasons, in addition to the racist ones.

Shouldn’t that logic apply at least equally to Obama supporters?[/quote]
Obviously! But still those black voters were Hilldog supporters before they turned to Barry. I’m sure there’s some tiny number that have been Barry supporters all along, and they hate white folks, but most have loved the Clintons for along time. And the Clintons are teh white.

To be clear there are sexists, racists, and ageists in both parties. I’m not giving a rhyme or reason to it.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.

I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.

Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.

Ironic that Florida would do it to themselves you mean.

You mean vote? Nice blaming the victim here.
The victim?

So people who break the well established and preset rules with repeatedly spelled out consequences are “victims” now? Interesting.

Stripping people of their votes becuase they did not meet the whims of the party makes them victims. Florida has every right to vote when it wants.
Just Florida though? Yes lets just let every state decide when they want to vote, no organizational problems there…(Lets’s all vote first!)

Funny stuff.

Brilliant strategy. Please stay with it.

Don’t worry about Florida.

It’s weird, the delegates are going to be seated, but still we pretend this matters somehow?

And seated or unseated, Obama’s numbers would change very little, and again he doesn’t plan on winning FL. I feel like I’ve mentioned this a couple times now.
[/quote]

You really assume people read all of your posts. That is kind of funny and egotistical…small wonder you support Barack Hussein Obama.

If he can’t carry Fla. he surely isn’t going to carry the rest of the Southern states. In Pa. he has no chance, he’s toast in this state (ask Rendell). Same for WV and Ohio. He’ll battle for the West but the West is McCain country. Unless he gets the Rock Band to do a free concert on election day he won’t do much in Oregon either. He’ll carry the NE except for PA and most likely California. He’ll be strong in Ill and Indiana, maybe Wisc and MI. Rove’s map makes a lot more sense the the DNC’s.

Hope you weren’t counting on a job with him.

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.

I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.

Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.

Ironic that Florida would do it to themselves you mean.

You mean vote? Nice blaming the victim here.
The victim?

So people who break the well established and preset rules with repeatedly spelled out consequences are “victims” now? Interesting.

Stripping people of their votes becuase they did not meet the whims of the party makes them victims. Florida has every right to vote when it wants.
Just Florida though? Yes lets just let every state decide when they want to vote, no organizational problems there…(Lets’s all vote first!)

Funny stuff.

Brilliant strategy. Please stay with it.

Don’t worry about Florida.

It’s weird, the delegates are going to be seated, but still we pretend this matters somehow?

And seated or unseated, Obama’s numbers would change very little, and again he doesn’t plan on winning FL. I feel like I’ve mentioned this a couple times now.

You really assume people read all of your posts. That is kind of funny and egotistical…small wonder you support Barack Hussein Obama.

If he can’t carry Fla. he surely isn’t going to carry the rest of the Southern states. In Pa. he has no chance, he’s toast in this state (ask Rendell). Same for WV and Ohio. He’ll battle for the West but the West is McCain country. Unless he gets the Rock Band to do a free concert on election day he won’t do much in Oregon either. He’ll carry the NE except for PA and most likely California. He’ll be strong in Ill and Indiana, maybe Wisc and MI. Rove’s map makes a lot more sense the the DNC’s.

Hope you weren’t counting on a job with him.
[/quote]

And Santorum will beat Casey.

But if Boston is reading this… This is the kind of annoying over-confident post I was referring to…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

Just Florida though? Yes lets just let every state decide when they want to vote, no organizational problems there…(Lets’s all vote first!)

Funny stuff.

Actually, I would be all for a one-day nationwide primary - I really don’t understand why the opinions of Iowans, New Hampshireites and South Carolinians should carry such weight…

They shouldn’t, nor should the party force people out of the race early when the race is close as it is with Hillary/Obama.

Probably why the party hasn’t.

What world do you live in?
[/quote]
How is the party forcing her out? You realize she’s still in the race?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What is this talk of racism against Obama? Obama gets ~ 90% of the black votes. Doesn’t Hillary have a better case at being the victim of racism?

No.

Remember? They used to all support Hillary over Obama. Things changed.

But,
yes there is racism against Obama.

When did black voters support Hillary over Obama? Before they ever heard of Obama?

But how were they racists when they overwhelmingly supported her?
(hint: they weren’t)

When all their choices were white people race really was not in play for many and some even refused to vote. Obama is getting black people to vote in record numbers based mostly on race.

Obama was a choice, and he’s black by half. So something changed their minds other than race.

When did they change their minds? When was Hillary ahead in the black community?[/quote]

Before the primary. By a 2/3 to 1/3 margin over Obama.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.

I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.

Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.

Ironic that Florida would do it to themselves you mean.

You mean vote? Nice blaming the victim here.
The victim?

So people who break the well established and preset rules with repeatedly spelled out consequences are “victims” now? Interesting.

Stripping people of their votes becuase they did not meet the whims of the party makes them victims. Florida has every right to vote when it wants.
Just Florida though? Yes lets just let every state decide when they want to vote, no organizational problems there…(Lets’s all vote first!)

Funny stuff.

Brilliant strategy. Please stay with it.

Don’t worry about Florida.

It’s weird, the delegates are going to be seated, but still we pretend this matters somehow?

And seated or unseated, Obama’s numbers would change very little, and again he doesn’t plan on winning FL. I feel like I’ve mentioned this a couple times now.

You really assume people read all of your posts. That is kind of funny and egotistical…small wonder you support Barack Hussein Obama.

If he can’t carry Fla. he surely isn’t going to carry the rest of the Southern states. In Pa. he has no chance, he’s toast in this state (ask Rendell). Same for WV and Ohio. He’ll battle for the West but the West is McCain country. Unless he gets the Rock Band to do a free concert on election day he won’t do much in Oregon either. He’ll carry the NE except for PA and most likely California. He’ll be strong in Ill and Indiana, maybe Wisc and MI. Rove’s map makes a lot more sense the the DNC’s.

Hope you weren’t counting on a job with him.

And Santorum will beat Casey.

But if Boston is reading this… This is the kind of annoying over-confident post I was referring to…[/quote]

Governor Rendell happens to be a democrat. That and the NRA not liking him will doom him in Pa. I know of 4 lifetime democrats that would vote Hilliary over McCain, but go McCain over Obama. I know this sample size is almost nothing, but the rank and file regular guy democrats don’t like him here.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.

I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.

Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.

Ironic that Florida would do it to themselves you mean.

You mean vote? Nice blaming the victim here.
The victim?

So people who break the well established and preset rules with repeatedly spelled out consequences are “victims” now? Interesting.

Stripping people of their votes becuase they did not meet the whims of the party makes them victims. Florida has every right to vote when it wants.
Just Florida though? Yes lets just let every state decide when they want to vote, no organizational problems there…(Lets’s all vote first!)

Funny stuff.

Brilliant strategy. Please stay with it.

Don’t worry about Florida.

It’s weird, the delegates are going to be seated, but still we pretend this matters somehow?

And seated or unseated, Obama’s numbers would change very little, and again he doesn’t plan on winning FL. I feel like I’ve mentioned this a couple times now.

You really assume people read all of your posts. That is kind of funny and egotistical…small wonder you support Barack Hussein Obama.

If he can’t carry Fla. he surely isn’t going to carry the rest of the Southern states. In Pa. he has no chance, he’s toast in this state (ask Rendell). Same for WV and Ohio. He’ll battle for the West but the West is McCain country. Unless he gets the Rock Band to do a free concert on election day he won’t do much in Oregon either. He’ll carry the NE except for PA and most likely California. He’ll be strong in Ill and Indiana, maybe Wisc and MI. Rove’s map makes a lot more sense the the DNC’s.

Hope you weren’t counting on a job with him.

And Santorum will beat Casey.

But if Boston is reading this… This is the kind of annoying over-confident post I was referring to…

Governor Rendell happens to be a democrat. That and the NRA not liking him will doom him in Pa. I know of 4 lifetime democrats that would vote Hilliary over McCain, but go McCain over Obama. I know this sample size is almost nothing, but the rank and file regular guy democrats don’t like him here.

[/quote]

But he’s ahead, and that’s now. In the months ahead Rendell and the Clintons will be campaigning for him and things could likely improve even more.

To say “he has no chance” is just bizarre. He clearly has a really good chance.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
You’ve become a caricature of everything you claimed to hate about politics. [/quote]

Have I said anything good about Obama?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
McWhorter and Loury parse the various reasons whites might vote against Obama - seems like there may actually be some non-racist bases for making such a radical decision…[/quote]

I don’t think anyone has claimed that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama.

However, if you were to talk about Kentucky, for example, CNN reported the results of their exit polling – in which a good chunk of people ADMITTED to making voting decisions based on race.

Anyway, to be clear, there are certainly reasons to vote for Obama, or to vote against Obama, that have absolutely nothing to do with race!

[quote]100meters wrote:

And Santorum will beat Casey.

But if Boston is reading this… This is the kind of annoying over-confident post I was referring to…[/quote]

It’s going to be a fight:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26723

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
McWhorter and Loury parse the various reasons whites might vote against Obama - seems like there may actually be some non-racist bases for making such a radical decision…

vroom wrote:
I don’t think anyone has claimed that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama.

However, if you were to talk about Kentucky, for example, CNN reported the results of their exit polling – in which a good chunk of people ADMITTED to making voting decisions based on race.

Anyway, to be clear, there are certainly reasons to vote for Obama, or to vote against Obama, that have absolutely nothing to do with race![/quote]

Where was this? I couldn’t find it in CNN’s exit poll archives.

Question: Was it just Hillary voters, or Democrats in general who were admitting to voting based on race? Because those are two very different fact patterns.

ADDENDUM:

Never mind, I found them on page 4.

If I read the results correctly, 18% of the white Democratic voters said race was important to them, and of those 88% voted for Clinton - so between 15-16% of white Democratic voters thought race was important and voted for Clinton. CNN doesn’t report the numbers for black voters voting who reported that race was an important factor (and so also does not report how many of those voted for Obama).

Actually, some curious unreported numbers there - they say 7% of voters identified race as the most important factor, but then they didn’t identify the candidate those people chose. 14% said it was “one of several” important factors, and of those 78% voted for Clinton - and if one goes back to page three you’d note that White Democrats + White Independents = 83% of the vote, which would imply that a large percentage of the 9% Black Democrat vote was voting either based on race alone or race as “one of several” important factors.

And of course, as this continues to play out it continues to help McCain’s chances:

[i]WONDERLAND
by Daniel Henninger

Why Hillary Goes Nuclear
May 29, 2008; Page A15

Hillary is right: Weird stuff really could happen in June. Rafael Nadal could lose the French Open. Big Brown could lose at Belmont. Alan Greenspan could admit error. But I’ve got a list of things that will never happen to Barack Obama this June.

This June, Barack Obama will not call for extending the Bush tax cuts.

In June, Barack Obama will not say the surge proves the U.S. should stay the course in Iraq.

Not in this or any June will Barack Obama come out for private health savings accounts.

June will freeze over before Barack Obama says the Bush warrantless wiretap program has made Americans safer. In fact, Hillary Clinton herself won’t say any of these things either.

Hillary is right. Whether running for president or playing the lottery, you never know. Here, though, is one constant in a knuckleball world: In any month she can name the past year, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been singing from the same hymnal to the same Democratic choir.

Analysts who’ve scrubbed the details of their campaigns’ policy proposals note that with the exception of one difference in their health-care plans and on talking to Iran, you’ll find more variation in the Everly Brothers than between these two Democratic voices.

Which is why Hillary keeps going nuclear.

Because of the iron law of Democratic primaries �?? Run Liberal or Die �?? she couldn’t distinguish herself from Obama in any substantive way. The last primary Democrat who tried to go to the pack’s right was Joe Lieberman. He was run out of the party. For a candidate locked left on substance, only one big piece of political artillery remains: Get personal.

Thus we heard a former two-term American president say in South Carolina that the Obama victory looked like Jesse Jackson’s one win. It’s why Hillary intimated that Obama has some weird problem with “white” voters. Or in the campaign’s greatest boardinghouse reach, after a debate interlocutor asked Sen. Obama about his relationship with the former terrorist William Ayers, Hillary added arcane detail to the Ayers story.

Whatever tangled synapses of ambition and resentment released the remark about Robert Kennedy’s assassination, candidate Clinton’s head has spent too much time believing the personal is political.

Back before this campaign began, the Hillary who left bipartisan audiences impressed and thinking well of her spoke to her strength, which is to give the impression that she does fresh thinking about old problems. At a Wall Street Journal conference on health care several years ago, she talked in interesting detail about hospitals and the need for portable electronic health-care records. One of her biggest applause lines the day I watched her do blue-collar primary venues in northern Ohio was when she’d ask how many people needed help with college debt. It was a shrewd, and legitimate, insight. The combined income of many middle-class couples puts them outside the guidelines used to give scholarship money. But after she won Ohio and Texas, with Rev. Wright raging on YouTube, her talk turned to Obama’s “white” problem.

Some say the politics of personal destruction is part of the Clinton DNA. Still, the past three Democratic primary cycles have displayed a liberalish homogeneity on policy. But when the need comes to escalate, the nuclear option is to get personal. Her team knows the drill.

John McCain is not bound by the rules of the Democratic primaries. He has an option not available to Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich: Pull away the curtain of eloquence, and what the politics of Barack Obama reveal is a very standard liberal, at best.

His stated view of how to relieve the plight of young black men in failing school is what the teachers unions have had on offer for 20 years.

In July 2007 remarks on selecting judges, reprinted yesterday in the New York Times, Obama conveyed a philosophy grounded in a remarkably explicit obsession with class and incomes.

To the entitlement bombs of Social Security and Medicare, he would add expansions of Medicaid and subsidies to some businesses for health-care costs.

His desire to raise the cap on Social Security taxes will hit the $100,000 two-income families who applauded Hillary’s appeal on college debt.

My friends, Sen. Obama is very eloquent, but he is also going to be very, very expensive. It may turn out that an angry, inflation-pressed America just wants to vote for an aura. Feel free, so to speak. John McCain’s job will be to explain the price of voting for eloquence.

Write to henninger@wsj.com[/i]

[quote]100meters wrote:

And seated or unseated, Obama’s numbers would change very little, and again he doesn’t plan on winning FL. I feel like I’ve mentioned this a couple times now.
[/quote]

They need to compete in FL - and they need to win MI. I will be watching to see if they can pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one…

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The Democrats are disenfranchising their own. Glad you support it.

I don’t see why the DNC needs to let Florida legislature dictate the primary schedule. Most of us support supporting the rules, as Hillary said she would. Some of us have stuck to that, others haven’t. Since their delegates will be seated in some fashion, and their votes don’t change the outcome regardless, not much to worry about.

Dictate the primary schedule? Who the hell cares? They stripped the state of Florida of their votes, quite ironic considering 2000.

Ironic that Florida would do it to themselves you mean.

You mean vote? Nice blaming the victim here.
The victim?

So people who break the well established and preset rules with repeatedly spelled out consequences are “victims” now? Interesting.

Stripping people of their votes becuase they did not meet the whims of the party makes them victims. Florida has every right to vote when it wants.
Just Florida though? Yes lets just let every state decide when they want to vote, no organizational problems there…(Lets’s all vote first!)

Funny stuff.

Brilliant strategy. Please stay with it.

Don’t worry about Florida.

It’s weird, the delegates are going to be seated, but still we pretend this matters somehow?

And seated or unseated, Obama’s numbers would change very little, and again he doesn’t plan on winning FL. I feel like I’ve mentioned this a couple times now.

You really assume people read all of your posts. That is kind of funny and egotistical…small wonder you support Barack Hussein Obama.

If he can’t carry Fla. he surely isn’t going to carry the rest of the Southern states. In Pa. he has no chance, he’s toast in this state (ask Rendell). Same for WV and Ohio. He’ll battle for the West but the West is McCain country. Unless he gets the Rock Band to do a free concert on election day he won’t do much in Oregon either. He’ll carry the NE except for PA and most likely California. He’ll be strong in Ill and Indiana, maybe Wisc and MI. Rove’s map makes a lot more sense the the DNC’s.

Hope you weren’t counting on a job with him.

And Santorum will beat Casey.

But if Boston is reading this… This is the kind of annoying over-confident post I was referring to…[/quote]

And Gore will beat Bush and so will Kerry. Some record you have.

Wow well thought out rebuttal. What times recess at your school.

[quote]100meters wrote:

How is the party forcing her out? You realize she’s still in the race?
[/quote]

Of course she is still in, much to the dismay of the party leaderhip that is trying to push her out of the race.

[quote]100meters wrote:
…When did they change their minds? When was Hillary ahead in the black community?

Before the primary. By a 2/3 to 1/3 margin over Obama.
[/quote]

Which primary? How long before? A year before? I don’t doubt that before most heard of him that they ddn’t support him. As soon as Obama was well known he had overwhelming support of the black community.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

And seated or unseated, Obama’s numbers would change very little, and again he doesn’t plan on winning FL. I feel like I’ve mentioned this a couple times now.

They need to compete in FL - and they need to win MI. I will be watching to see if they can pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one…

Dems seek to avoid meltdown - POLITICO [/quote]

I don’t see him winning FL (Obama that is)
and MI will hard work…no poll really will matter till post convention and veep picks, but it’s interesting in one poll Hilldog boosts him 11 points in MI

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

How is the party forcing her out? You realize she’s still in the race?

Of course she is still in, much to the dismay of the party leaderhip that is trying to push her out of the race.[/quote]

Of course that isn’t actually happening.
(again who’s pushing her out early?)