The Fracturing of a Party...

[deep]

Deep, I think you overrated Hillary and underrate Obama. You keep saying "electoral votes" and "certain states" but rarely why Hillary would do a better job in those states than Obama.

I believe Hillary still is the stronger in candidate in both Ohio and Florida.

And I believe there are current polls that support this.

These two states are most likely the key to the whole election


Something to keep in mind also.

The Latino or Hispanic vote, ( I don’t know which, if either is the preferred term) is a major consideration in this election. McCain has quite a bit of support there. Hillary has as much and probably more.

Obama is not strong there at all, the advantage could go to McCain. There are western states that could swing for McCain over Obama that Hillary might win.

the Florida vote?


the CA vote?

and all other states with Hispanic voting polulations- Hillary polls much higher than Obama

Democrats have 141 delegates in Ohio to be allocated proportionally. A pre-Super Tuesday Columbus Dispatch poll had Clinton way out in front, winning 2 to 1 over Obama, and the state's mostly white working-class demographic suits her. Exit polls from Super Tuesday show Clinton leading Obama among voters earning less than $50,000 a year. But one of Clinton's key groups is largely missing from the state. "The wild card is we don't have the Latino population that California has," says Ohio University-Lancaster history professor Ken Heineman. Latino voters helped Clinton win California.

 

[maycocksean]

I appreciate the analysis, deep.

It really helps me understand why you'd prefer to see a Clinton nomination.

I'm still not absolutely certain that the Latino vote, for example, would swing McCain's way rather than Obama's. Again, I'm not sure that Democratic support is so candidate-specific that if their preferred candidate doesn't get the nom they'll stay home or vote for the Republicans. But then I suppose it wouldn't be about the Dems as much as it would the independents. And you're saying that these independents in states like FL or Ohio would swing towards Clinton but away from Obama. I'm doubtful of that, but, we'll see. . .

The goal is that we both be wrong. If Hillary gets the nomination, then she wins and I'm wrong. I could live with that. If Obama gets the nomination and he wins, then you're wrong and I know you could live with that too.

 

[phillyfan26]

Hasn't Obama been winning more battleground primaries than Hillary though?

 

[maycocksean]

Hasn't Obama been winning more battleground primaries than Hillary though?

Well, I know on Super Tuesday, Hillary won more of the states with lots of delegates (Massachusetts, New York, California). Wouldn't those states also have more electoral votes? My questions is whether a Clinton win in those states Democratic primaries translates into a Obama electoral college loss in the general election in those same states--or in Ohio or Florida. That's the part I'm not convinced of.

 

[anitram]

Well, I know on Super Tuesday, Hillary won more of the states with lots of delegates (Massachusetts, New York, California). Wouldn't those states also have more electoral votes? My questions is whether a Clinton win in those states Democratic primaries translates into a Obama electoral college loss in the general election in those same states--or in Ohio or Florida. That's the part I'm not convinced of.

Do you honestly believe that a Republican is going to win Massachusetts, New York or California in the general? Not a chance.

Ohio/Florida are a different story, but the big states Hillary are Democratic strongholds anyway.

 

[Harry Vest]

Re: Re: The Fracturing of a Party...

this wii die down a lot
once McCain locks up the nomination

and McCain can and will most likely beat Obama in Nov.

Hillary would give McCain a more difficult contest.

This is completely the opposite of what reality is...Clinton would NOT be a harder candidate to beat for John McCain. If Clinton is the nominee the Democrats will quite probably lose the election...and deservedly so - if they choose Clinton over Obama they will hand the Whitehouse to McCain. Nobody wants BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON - that would be absolute disaster. It's time for the Democratic party to wake the fuck up and take a chance for real change...for once!!!

 

[deep]

Re: Re: Re: The Fracturing of a Party...

BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON

what are you jibbery about?





nobody ever voted for that ticket

and it can not and will not be on the ballot this November

 

[maycocksean]

Do you honestly believe that a Republican is going to win Massachusetts, New York or California in the general? Not a chance.

Ohio/Florida are a different story, but the big states Hillary are Democratic strongholds anyway.

No, I do not believe the Republicans will win those states, regardless of whether Obama or Clinton is the Democratic nominee. My question is this--is Florida/Ohio a different story in terms of outcome? The argument--at least as I understand it--is that swing voters in Florida/Ohio would vote for McCain over Obama but choose Clinton over McCain. I tend to think they won't. If anything, swing voters are more likely to swing towards Obama than towards Clinton.

 

[yolland]

You'd really need to have more information about who exactly the "swing voters" in those particular states are; it's not like that's a nationally uniform category demographically. And also some sense of why they voted in the particular party primary they did (if they did, since most swing voters don't vote in primaries). In theory, primary exit polls might help with that, but since Florida's Democratic primary didn't officially "count" this time, turnout may have been exceptionally nonrepresentative and therefore those results might be less reliable than usual. According to the exit polls, Hillary did win with independents in Florida's Democratic primary, 40% to Obama's 30%; while McCain got 44% of the independent vote in Florida's Republican primary. (Total Democratic turnout was 1.7. million; total Republican turnout, 1.9 million; independents comprised 17% of ~1500 exit poll respondents in both cases.)

 

[maycocksean]

You'd really need to have more information about who exactly the "swing voters" in those particular states are; it's not like that's a nationally uniform category demographically. And also some sense of why they voted in the particular party primary they did (if they did, since most swing voters don't vote in primaries). In theory, primary exit polls might help with that, but since Florida's Democratic primary didn't officially "count" this time, turnout may have been exceptionally nonrepresentative and therefore those results might be less reliable than usual. According to the exit polls, Hillary did win with independents in Florida's Democratic primary, 40% to Obama's 30%; while McCain got 44% of the independent vote in Florida's Republican primary. (Total Democratic turnout was 1.7. million; total Republican turnout, 1.9 million; independents comprised 17% of ~1500 exit poll respondents in both cases.)

Right, right. That's just what was I gonna say. I was just. . uh. . testing to see if you knew. . . Yeah, that's it.

 

[Irvine511]

It did not scream Gay to most of Florida's section of the Bible Belt. But it does seem to scream gay to people in this forum. Interesting.

these things don't "scream" gay to me. i know they are very common characteristics of gay men of a certain age. it's been written about all over Florida, and much more since he's been elected, and not before.

i'm sorry your boy Crist is gay and therefore unable to be on the ticket with McCain. he will receive scrutiny as a Veep pic that will go far beyond what he received as a candidate for governor, and with an entire nation of Republicans to choose from, i'm afraid he's not even going to make the short list, his popularity nonwithstanding.

it is too bad. and Karl Rove would quite disagree with you about the importance of getting gay bashing amendments on the ballot in 2004. he was quite right that something like this would mobilize the Republican base, and it certainly did in Ohio, and particularly in SE Ohio, which is quite conservative. 2004 was an election that was won by the base of the Republican party. they were able to mobilize their grassroots because they had superior organizational skills and because that amendment provided motivation for some evangelicals to get to the polls. and Ohio was the determining state. if Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the election. Bush won the election because he won Ohio. and he won Ohio because of the gay bashing amendments.

it's quite simple.

there's a reason why David Dreier will only go so far in the Republican Party. it's the same reason that Crist will never be the Veep.

 

[Strongbow]

if Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the election. Bush won the election because he won Ohio. and he won Ohio because of the gay bashing amendments.

it's quite simple.

there's a reason why David Dreier will only go so far in the Republican Party. it's the same reason that Crist will never be the Veep.

Well, exactly how many people voted in Ohio for Bush because of the gay bashing amendment that would not have voted for Bush anyway?

Unless you can answer that question, its simply a theory that Bush won Ohio because of the amendment.

While Florida is a battleground state, its probably the one of the 7 the Republicans have to worry the least about in this election. Unemployment there is below the national average at 4.7% and McCain will obviously do well with Florida's much older population. In addition, active duty military personal get to pick their "home state" and many pick Florida(expecially career military officers) which will bode well for McCain in the general election. Florida has only voted for the Democratic President 4 times since World War II, and in 1996, the last time the Democrats won the state, they likely only won it because Perot was a candidate who took away nearly 10% of the popular vote there.

So, perhaps having Crist on the ticket is not really needed in order to secure Florida. The real battles in November will likely be in places like Ohio, Missouri, and New Hampshire. The Republicans could actually lose Ohio but win the election if they pick up New Hampshire, which McCain has an excellent shot of doing.

 

[phillyfan26]

Well, exactly how many people voted in Ohio for Bush because of the gay bashing amendment that would not have voted for Bush anyway?

It's more of how many people voted because of the gay amendment that would not have at all if it wasn't there.

 

[Strongbow]

It's more of how many people voted because of the gay amendment that would not have at all if it wasn't there.

Thats what I was saying. Again, tell me who would not have voted if the amendment had not been there.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, exactly how many people voted in Ohio for Bush because of the gay bashing amendment that would not have voted for Bush anyway?

Unless you can answer that question, its simply a theory that Bush won Ohio because of the amendment.

what exactly is your point here? are you actually only going to concede the point that gay bashing helps get the Republican base out to vote if every voter filled out a form that says "i hate gay people"? the leaps and wild inferences you make when it comes to Iraq, and yet you won't even countenance this?

i am not saying that Bush won Ohio because of the gay bashing amendment. i am saying that the Republican base won the election for Bush, especially in Ohio, and one thing that encourages the Republican base is bashing gays. this is why Rove sought to get these amendments on the ballot in 2004, and that's one of the reasons why Bush won states with such amendments. it helped overall base turnout, which gave him the election. it's the Rove strategy. all he wants is a 50%+1 election victory.

So, perhaps having Crist on the ticket is not really needed in order to secure Florida. The real battles in November will likely be in places like Ohio, Missouri, and New Hampshire. The Republicans could actually lose Ohio but win the election if they pick up New Hampshire, which McCain has an excellent shot of doing.

i'm glad you've conceded the point. it's too bad for McCain, especially now that he might almost have to choose Huckabee.

 

[phillyfan26]

I think Irvine made that clear: The "values" voters in Ohio.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Same-Sex Marriage Issue Key to Some G.O.P. Races
By JAMES DAO

Published: November 4, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 3 - Proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in many of the 11 states where the measures appeared on the ballot on Tuesday, political analysts say, providing crucial assistance to Republican candidates including President Bush in Ohio and Senator Jim Bunning in Kentucky.

The amendments, which define marriage as between only a man and a woman, passed overwhelmingly in all 11 states, clearly receiving support from Democrats and independents as well as Republicans. Only in Oregon and Michigan did the amendment receive less than 60 percent of the vote.

But the ballot measures also appear to have acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted, even in this heated campaign, political analysts said. And in tight races, those voters - who historically have leaned heavily Republican - may have tipped the balance.

Advertisement

In Ohio, for instance, political analysts credit the ballot measure with increasing turnout in Republican bastions in the south and west, while also pushing swing voters in the Appalachian region of the southeast toward Mr. Bush. The president's extra-strong showing in those areas compensated for an extraordinarily large Democratic turnout in Cleveland and in Columbus, propelling him to a 136,000-vote victory.

"I'd be naïve if I didn't say it helped," said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. "And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president."

The other states that approved the amendments on Tuesday were Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah. In Georgia, gay rights groups said they planned to ask a judge to strike down the amendment as soon as the election results were certified.

In Kentucky, many political analysts say the proposed amendment brought out conservative rural voters who helped Mr. Bunning, whose campaign had been foundering amid concerns about his mental health, pull out a narrow victory over Dr. Daniel Mongiardo, a Democrat. Though Dr. Mongiardo had endorsed the amendment, the Republicans ran commercials using the sound of ringing wedding bells to accuse him of being weak on the issue.

With little presidential campaigning in Kentucky because of Mr. Bush's hefty lead there, many conservative voters might have stayed home if it were not for the proposed amendment, analysts said. Supporters of the measure used extensive church networks to persuade people to vote.

"I give this amendment more credit for re-electing Jim Bunning than George Bush's coattails," said Al Cross, a longtime political reporter in Kentucky who is now interim director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky.[/q]

 

[Strongbow]

what exactly is your point here? are you actually only going to concede the point that gay bashing helps get the Republican base out to vote if every voter filled out a form that says "i hate gay people"? the leaps and wild inferences you make when it comes to Iraq, and yet you won't even countenance this?

i am not saying that Bush won Ohio because of the gay bashing amendment. i am saying that the Republican base won the election for Bush, especially in Ohio, and one thing that encourages the Republican base is bashing gays. this is why Rove sought to get these amendments on the ballot in 2004, and that's one of the reasons why Bush won states with such amendments. it helped overall base turnout, which gave him the election. it's the Rove strategy. all he wants is a 50%+1 election victory.

I'm challenging the claim that the gay bashing amendment won the election for George Bush. I simply asked you to provide numbers about something that is VERY specific. You post an article that amounts to simply "political analyst" claiming the turnout was increased by the amendment, but they provide NO evidence that is in fact the case.

Yes, it was apart of Rove's strategy, but that does not prove that it in fact brought out anyone who would not have voted anyways let alone that it won the election for Bush.

The wild leaps and inferences on Iraq belong to you.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm challenging the claim that the gay bashing amendment won the election for George Bush. I simply asked you to provide numbers about something that is VERY specific. You post an article that amounts to simply "political analyst" claiming the turnout was increased by the amendment, but they provide NO evidence that is in fact the case.

Yes, it was apart of Rove's strategy, but that does not prove that it in fact brought out anyone who would not have voted anyways let alone that it won the election for Bush.

The wild leaps and inferences on Iraq belong to you.

and this is why it's impossible to have a discussion with you, no matter the topic.

[q]"I'd be naïve if I didn't say it helped," said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. "And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president."[/q]

what do you want? and why are you getting so bogged down in this when the overall argument -- Republicans kick gays to turn out the base -- is 100% true?

they put it on the ballot in Ohio. conservative, evangelicals had increased voter turnout that was enough to counter the Democratic increase in the cities, and Ohio went for Bush thus giving him the election.

 

[anitram]

Yes, it was apart of Rove's strategy,

Does it make you proud to vote for a party running on a strategy of bigotry?

 

[Dreadsox]

There was plenty of evidence posted by me at the time of the election. A little research and it can be found in here.

 

[BVS]

I'm challenging the claim that the gay bashing amendment won the election for George Bush. I simply asked you to provide numbers about something that is VERY specific. You post an article that amounts to simply "political analyst" claiming the turnout was increased by the amendment, but they provide NO evidence that is in fact the case.

Yes, it was apart of Rove's strategy, but that does not prove that it in fact brought out anyone who would not have voted anyways let alone that it won the election for Bush.

The wild leaps and inferences on Iraq belong to you.

The evangelicals themselves bragged that they came out in record numbers and gave Bush the win. It was all over the media for months, you can't have this short of a memory...

 

[Strongbow]

and this is why it's impossible to have a discussion with you, no matter the topic.

[q]"I'd be naïve if I didn't say it helped," said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. "And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president."[/q]

what do you want? and why are you getting so bogged down in this when the overall argument -- Republicans kick gays to turn out the base -- is 100% true?

they put it on the ballot in Ohio. conservative, evangelicals had increased voter turnout that was enough to counter the Democratic increase in the cities, and Ohio went for Bush thus giving him the election.

Thats what Robert Bennett says, but where is the evidence? Voter turnout increased for Republicans in nearly every single county in the country over the year 2000, regardless whether the amendment was on the ballot or not.

The fact is, no one knows exactly why each of the 2,859,768 people who voted for Bush in Ohio in 2004. No one knows under what circumstances how many, if any, of these people would have stayed home that day.

Yes, there was exit polling done that indicated this or that, but it also indicated that John Kerry was going to win and he didn't.

The only thing we know for sure is that Bush came out on top.

 

[Strongbow]

The evangelicals themselves bragged that they came out in record numbers and gave Bush the win. It was all over the media for months, you can't have this short of a memory...

Thats great, but thats not evidence that these people would have all stayed home and Bush would have lost the election. Most of these people were going to vote for Bush no matter what. Republican turnout was up everywhere regardless of whether the amendment was on the ballot.

 

[BVS]

Yes, if by evidence you want exact numbers you won't get them, I can't recall a box labeled bigot to be checked off.

 

[Strongbow]

Yes, if by evidence you want exact numbers you won't get them, I can't recall a box labeled bigot to be checked off.

Yet, your ready to lable many if not most of them as bigots.

 

[BVS]

If a "defense of marriage act" or a gay marriage ban brings you out to vote, then yes I'm ready to call you a bigot.

 

[Strongbow]

If a "defense of marriage act" or a gay marriage ban brings you out to vote, then yes I'm ready to call you a bigot.

Can you name anyone who voted, who would not have voted if that amendment was not on the ballot? Again, this was only on the ballot in 11 states and only 3 of those states were battleground states, and two of them went Blue, not red. Voter turnout for Republicans was up all over the country, not just in these 11 states.

 

[martha]

If a "defense of marriage act" or a gay marriage ban brings you out to vote, then yes I'm ready to call you a bigot.

I'm in on that one, too.

 

[phillyfan26]

Can you name anyone who voted, who would not have voted if that amendment was not on the ballot? Again, this was only on the ballot in 11 states and only 3 of those states were battleground states, and two of them went Blue, not red. Voter turnout for Republicans was up all over the country, not just in these 11 states.

How is Bennett's quote not a piece of evidence? The man's living is made in understanding the Republican voters in the state of Ohio. He certainly would know better than you.

And each and every person against gay marriage is a bigot. That's a fact, not an opinion.