Yes, we can.

[BarTopDancer]

Democrats who live in the south and drive trucks. Or Democrats who drive trucks, period. I know several.

Just because you don't know any Democrats who drive trucks doesn't mean they don't exist.

One can't expect to agree with every single issue their particular party supports [anymore]. One has to pick the party that works best for them.

While I am way more liberal leaning then it may appear with my love of southern guys, and country music, the closed mindedness that is glaring through on LoT (more than normal) to anything that isn't all Democrat or all liberal all the time is frustrating and annoying. Varying opinions used to be welcomed and debated. Now they are attacked. It seems that we've lost our sense of community, and sense of humor. Attack, attack, jump, attack is what political and anything that isn't fluff have become. It's sad too.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm a democrat and I sometimes drive a truck.


Apparently I must spread some more mojo before giving some to BarTopDancer again, but she is right on the money. Let's lighten up and allow more free freedom of expression and opinion. It's good for all of us.



(I'm probably as guilty as any of getting too high-handed)

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Aug20.html

Anyone still think Obama has this thing locked up?

Check out the "on this day in 2004 button" at the link if you do

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/Aug20.html

Anyone still think Obama has this thing locked up?

Check out the "on this day in 2004 button" at the link if you do

Reagan and Carter were running neck and neck until the end, when Reagan won in a landslide. One pundit's mention of this:

...but the fact is that this election resembles nothing so much as the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan — with Obama as Reagan. By the summer of that year, voters were so down on Carter and the Democrats that they desperately wanted to send them packing, but weren’t sure they could afford to do so.

Carter actually led in most polls through the summer and into the early fall because voters didn’t know if they could actually vote for Reagan, who’d been framed by his opponents as a bomb-throwing lunatic who might plunge us into war if he ever got near the button. By fall, however, as the results of the debates and the opportunity to take Reagan’s measure had settled in, voters finally got comfortable with the idea of him in the Oval Office. When that happened, the bottom fell out, Carter was gone and a lot of Democratic senators and congressmen got sent packing along with him.

This year is shaping up the same way, only this time it’s the Republicans voters want to fire. And this time, it’s the Democratic nominee they are not quite sure they can put in the Oval Office.

I would maintain that Obama has a higher mountain to scale than did Reagan, but the challenge is the same. If at any point between now and Election Day voters decide they can actually trust him as president, they’ll give him the job and the close race today’s polls seem to be predicting will turn into a Democratic landslide.

Yes, just punditry, no claims to prescience from me. We'll see how it goes...

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Reagan and Carter were running neck and neck until the end, when Reagan won in a landslide. One pundit's mention of this:


Yes, just punditry, no claims to prescience from me. We'll see how it goes...

Well, isn't that my point? I am not saying Obama's going to lose I am saying there is no way, judging by current polls, Obama has this locked up....far from it in my opinioin.

Edit to add:

I find it interesting that this pundit uses the Reagan Carter contest as a device to prove his point but needs to assign Obama the spot of the Republican in order to carry this off.......when the fact is, Democrats tend to peak in July polls then slide downwards from there(Obama is a Democrat, not a Republican).

~Kerry; ahead by 7% in July lost by 3% in November

~Gore; ahead by 2% in July lost by 0% in November

~Clinton; behind by 7% in July but did win in November by 5%(guess he's the exception to the rule)

~Dukakis; ahead by 6% in July lost by 8% in November

~Carter; down only by 3% in July but lost by 10% in November

~Carter; up by 33% in July and only won by 3% in November

~Humphrey; up by 5% in JUly and lost by 1% in November

~Kennedy; up by 6% in July but only won by 1/5 of 1% in November

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I find it interesting that this pundit uses the Reagan Carter contest as a device to prove his point but needs to assign Obama the spot of the Republican in order to carry this off.......when the fact is, Democrats tend to peak in July polls then slide downwards from there(Obama is a Democrat, not a Republican).

Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

You did read the quote, right? I'm not sure because your statement isn't addressing it. Should I restate it in parenthesis?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

You did read the quote, right? I'm not sure because your statement isn't addressing it. Should I restate it in parenthesis?

I read the quote...but will admit that I have a new word to look up now

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Really? A Democrat? Thank goodness for your parenthetical.

You did read the quote, right? I'm not sure because your statement isn't addressing it. Should I restate it in parenthesis?

Why so snarky?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

~Kerry; ahead by 7% in July lost by 3% in November
~Gore; ahead by 2% in July lost by 0% in November
.....

How's that using historical trends working for you in predicting the course of the current election?

As for your earlier question to me, I really don't want to end up typing a 10-page analysis that just gets tossed with a "phhht" so I'll just say to look at the key difference between the current polling and the Kerry polling from 4 years ago.

Back in 2004 Kerry did have a big lead if you assumed every state polling in his favor would be won by him. However, almost 60% of those electoral votes were in the "weakly Dem" category meaning they were within the margin of error and that a very small general shift could move them over to Bush. Which, for the most part did happen. Comparatively Bush had only 26% in a similar at risk position.

This year the situation is reversed. Of Obama's 264 electoral votes on that map, only 5% are in the extremely at risk camp. There are really only two states currently polling for Obama that could shift to McCain with just a small change. Conversely, more than 30% of McCain's votes are extremely at risk. McCain really only has one easy significant easy state to take from Obama (Minnesota, plus another small one) while Obama has four available (plus another three small ones): Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado.

McCain has to hold everything he has, even the stuff currently in his camp only because of statistical noise plus win Minnesota (which I really don't see giong to him).

So, despite the apparent closeness, I really don't think it is all that close at the moment. Yes, it might change. There just isn't reason beyond the gambler's fallacy to assume it will.


Damn, ended up blathering on anyway. I have no brake.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

McCain has to hold everything he has, even the stuff currently in his camp only because of statistical noise plus win Minnesota (which I really don't see giong to him).

So, despite the apparent closeness, I really don't think it is all that close at the moment. Yes, it might change. There just isn't reason beyond the gambler's fallacy to assume it will.

Fair enough, and speaking of gambler's the current line does have Obama with a 60% chance of winning to McCains 38%....so your point is well taken.