Electoral College Math

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]hedo 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…

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]

Of course nevermind I never made those predictions.

And how was I supposed to respond to stupidity like “no chance in PA”? It is clear you don’t seem to understand the state of PA anyway, hence “Santorum Rising!”

but to put it out to an honest broker…

Boston, does Barry have a chance to win in PA?

102

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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.

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]

October/November 2007 at least? The point is, it wasn’t racism that made them vote for Obama.

103

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

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.

October/November 2007 at least? The point is, it wasn’t racism that made them vote for Obama.[/quote]

What is the defining policy factor that makes 92% of the black population support Obama over Clinton, two candidates with nearly identical stances on the issues?

Let’s not be stupid here. Race is the biggest factor wrt Obama winning 92% of the black vote versus Hillary Clinton. Is there any other voting bloc of comparable size that supports a candidate with 92% of its electorate? I think Romney may have gotten something like 85% of the Mormon vote. I guess Romney’s stance on the issues were so pro-mormon he was just a no-brainer there too, huh? Definitely had nothing to do with his religion…

104

[quote]100meters wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Pa. is a big NRA state and they will be a presence. Obama is going to have a difficult time to win Pa.

Except he’s ahead. Weird.

But yes things will be tough and unpredictable in lots of states.[/quote]

I really don’t think he is, polls be damned. I want to know who did the polling and who did they poll.

105

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
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.

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.

October/November 2007 at least? The point is, it wasn’t racism that made them vote for Obama.

What is the defining policy factor that makes 92% of the black population support Obama over Clinton, two candidates with nearly identical stances on the issues?

Let’s not be stupid here. Race is the biggest factor wrt Obama winning 92% of the black vote versus Hillary Clinton. Is there any other voting bloc of comparable size that supports a candidate with 92% of its electorate? I think Romney may have gotten something like 85% of the Mormon vote.

I guess Romney’s stance on the issues were so pro-mormon he was just a no-brainer there too, huh? Definitely had nothing to do with his religion…[/quote]

Again they supported her, before him. Not racism.

Different from the voters in WV and KY (the racist ones) who in interviews said, it was race.

I’m sure if we’re not being stupid, there’s a difference

Again, blacks aren’t voting for Obama because they don’t like Hillary’s skin color. In october, most of them were fine with the color of her skin.

Not so in WV and KY.

For some (now)funny opinion on why Hilldog was trouncing Barry amongst blacks…

106

[quote]tom63 wrote:
100meters wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Pa. is a big NRA state and they will be a presence. Obama is going to have a difficult time to win Pa.

Except he’s ahead. Weird.

But yes things will be tough and unpredictable in lots of states.

I really don’t think he is, polls be damned. I want to know who did the polling and who did they poll.
[/quote]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pennsylvania.html

again, he clearly “has a chance”

107

[quote]100meters wrote:

Boston, does Barry have a chance to win in PA?[/quote]

IMHO he does - I’d say even money now, but that could change, obviously, depending on the VPs chosen and how things play out, particularly w/r/t how pissed off Hillary’s supporters get.

108

[quote]100meters wrote:
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.

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

Pelosi and Reid are apparently demanding that this thing be decided next week. Why the rush to have the super-delegates make their decisions? Goes against the whole idea.

109

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Pelosi and Reid are apparently demanding that this thing be decided next week. Why the rush to have the super-delegates make their decisions? Goes against the whole idea.[/quote]

Exactly. Democrats wanted this system presumably for a good reason, so why not let it play out, especially since this is the exact situation the super-delegate system was set up to handle - a popular, far left frontrunner hurrying through the primaries with the danger of a general election disaster looming (see McGovern, George).

I suspect the rush to get it over with is largely due to the fact that super-delegates don’t want the decision on their head. I don’t envy their position - they can’t be looking forward to it. But that is the system the Democrats wanted, let it work.

110

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
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.[/quote]

What’s also troubling is that people generally don’t like to ADMIT to making decisions based on race – so it’s probably having more impact in the election (in some regions) than is currently thought.

111

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo 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…

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

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

Of course nevermind I never made those predictions.

And how was I supposed to respond to stupidity like “no chance in PA”? It is clear you don’t seem to understand the state of PA anyway, hence “Santorum Rising!”

but to put it out to an honest broker…

Boston, does Barry have a chance to win in PA?[/quote]

I understand PA a hell of a lot more then you understand national elections. To really think you need to take of the blinbers of bias and you can’t do that. That’s why most people only taunt you. You’re just too easy to fuck with.

Why didn’t you mention your brilliant Kerry prediction?

Obama is anti gun and anti-coal. He is a postive moonbat on national defense and has a tax policy that will inhibit growth and drive corporations offshore. His tax policies will also hurt those who create jobs…small business owners. Those are core issues to PA. voters you blithering fool. At least Hillary had the good sense to lie about her goals.

By the way. Don’t misinterpet what I’m saying (hard for you) but I want Barack Huessien Obmam to be the nominee. He is a gift.

112

[quote]100meters wrote:
Again they supported her, before him. Not racism.

Different from the voters in WV and KY (the racist ones) who in interviews said, it was race.

I’m sure if we’re not being stupid, there’s a difference

Again, blacks aren’t voting for Obama because they don’t like Hillary’s skin color. In october, most of them were fine with the color of her skin.

Not so in WV and KY.
[/quote]

The black community never, ever supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Show me a single primary or caucus where Clinton got more support than Obama.

You’re talking about polling data that measured recognition, not support. Yes, there was certainly a time when more people recognized the name Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, but there has never been a time when Hillary Clinton has gotten a higher percentage of the black vote than Obama.

Also, if you had actually read the numerical analysis, you would see that the “racist” voters you’re describing in WV and KY include a large percentage of the black vote in that state. They admitted they were voting because of race.

Lastly, you still haven’t identified the non-race factor, that defining issue, that makes 92% of the black electorate choose Obama over Clinton. Last I checked these guys have nearly identical policy proposals. What is the issue that makes Obama so clearly (92%!) preferable to Clinton? You haven’t answered that and you won’t answer that. The silence is deafening.

113

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

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

Pelosi and Reid are apparently demanding that this thing be decided next week. Why the rush to have the super-delegates make their decisions? Goes against the whole idea.[/quote]

The thing is the race is over next Tuesday. When they decide next week after the race is over, maybe then you’ll get the party didn’t force her out. Odd that you can’t make that decision now, knowing what will happen next week.

114

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

Boston, does Barry have a chance to win in PA?

IMHO he does - I’d say even money now, but that could change, obviously, depending on the VPs chosen and how things play out, particularly w/r/t how pissed off Hillary’s supporters get.[/quote]

Or a billion other factors unknown to us now…

But still Thank You voice of (conservative)
reason!!!

115

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo 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…

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

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

Of course nevermind I never made those predictions.

And how was I supposed to respond to stupidity like “no chance in PA”? It is clear you don’t seem to understand the state of PA anyway, hence “Santorum Rising!”

but to put it out to an honest broker…

Boston, does Barry have a chance to win in PA?

I understand PA a hell of a lot more then you understand national elections. To really think you need to take of the blinbers of bias and you can’t do that. That’s why most people only taunt you. You’re just too easy to fuck with.

Why didn’t you mention your brilliant Kerry prediction?

Obama is anti gun and anti-coal. He is a postive moonbat on national defense and has a tax policy that will inhibit growth and drive corporations offshore. His tax policies will also hurt those who create jobs…small business owners. Those are core issues to PA. voters you blithering fool. At least Hillary had the good sense to lie about her goals.

By the way. Don’t misinterpet what I’m saying (hard for you) but I want Barack Huessien Obmam to be the nominee. He is a gift.
[/quote]

Again I never predicted Kerry. If you have to lie to make your case, don’t make the case.

Hillary’s policies are the same as Barry’s. Both are currently preferred over McCain. I really don’t know what else to say except…

SANTORUM!!!

116

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Pelosi and Reid are apparently demanding that this thing be decided next week. Why the rush to have the super-delegates make their decisions? Goes against the whole idea.

Exactly. Democrats wanted this system presumably for a good reason, so why not let it play out, especially since this is the exact situation the super-delegate system was set up to handle - a popular, far left frontrunner hurrying through the primaries with the danger of a general election disaster looming (see McGovern, George).

I suspect the rush to get it over with is largely due to the fact that super-delegates don’t want the decision on their head. I don’t envy their position - they can’t be looking forward to it. But that is the system the Democrats wanted, let it work.

[/quote]

Again, it has played out. It’s over next week. It has been the EXACT OPPOSITE of “rushed”. It has been a painfully long process (hello? its almost June?)
It seems like you guys really aren’t getting something here.

117

[quote]100meters wrote:
Again, it has played out. It’s over next week. It has been the EXACT OPPOSITE of “rushed”. It has been a painfully long process (hello? its almost June?)
It seems like you guys really aren’t getting something here.
[/quote]

They just want it to go as long as possible, rake up as much muck as possible, and create divisions among the democratic voting populace so that republicans can take advantage of it all during the election.

So, I’m assuming they want things to continue to the point that they aren’t willing to see the writing on the wall.

118

[quote]vroom wrote:

They just want it to go as long as possible, rake up as much muck as possible, and create divisions among the democratic voting populace so that republicans can take advantage of it all during the election.

So, I’m assuming they want things to continue to the point that they aren’t willing to see the writing on the wall.[/quote]

Actually, a number of folks - at this point - don’t care on the basis that they are ready to empty both barrels on Obama.

And by “empty both barrels”, I mean unleash the pent-up criticism Obama deserves as part of the vetting of any candidate. Once Obama is the unquestioned candidate, he’ll have to answer some questions he hasn’t had to up to now.

You’ll whine when it happens - after all, any criticism of Obama is a “distraction”, even if it speaks directly to what he has claimed or advertised himself as being - and you’ll try to impugn the motives of those who dare consider that Obama may not be a good president, but that will be, unfortunately, too bad.

119

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

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

Pelosi and Reid are apparently demanding that this thing be decided next week. Why the rush to have the super-delegates make their decisions? Goes against the whole idea.

The thing is the race is over next Tuesday. When they decide next week after the race is over, maybe then you’ll get the party didn’t force her out. Odd that you can’t make that decision now, knowing what will happen next week.
[/quote]

No, the race is over at the convention, the super-delegates get their say and they could decide the election either way. They are being pressured to make their decision and end it now, before the convention. The Democratic Party leadership is trying to give Hillary the shaft and is not giving her a fair shake.

120

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And by “empty both barrels”, I mean unleash the pent-up criticism Obama deserves as part of the vetting of any candidate. Once Obama is the unquestioned candidate, he’ll have to answer some questions he hasn’t had to up to now.

You’ll whine when it happens - after all, any criticism of Obama is a “distraction”, even if it speaks directly to what he has claimed or advertised himself as being - and you’ll try to impugn the motives of those who dare consider that Obama may not be a good president, but that will be, unfortunately, too bad.[/quote]

Is this more of the “I don’t insult” style commentary you are so famous for?

In any case, there are probably a bazillion reasons to criticize any politician, but sure, when I see the same old tired ridiculously spun statements being used, instead of real substance, you are damned right I’ll point at it.

Divisiveness, fear-mongering, swift-boating and other ridiculous political tactics are worthy of a call out.