LOL! Going out in South Harlem and attributing McCain's policies to Obama and the people on the street who are voting for Obama don't even notice:

YouTube - Harlem voters

Unfortunately, you'll probably pass out before death occurs, and then resume breathing comfortably. ;)

Eventually ... assuming we were to ever regain something resembling the willpower to do so on a national level. Alas, I won't hold my breath for that.

Imperialism FTW!

That is some interesting math. 2006 - 2000 = 3 or 4

And eventually wake up to find another stimulus bill has passed. What a nightmare!

I'll use a plastic bag to ensure success.

Fuzzy math, baby! Embrace it!

The trend back towards the democrats began after 3-4 years. They just didn't get enough seats to push them over the top until the 2006 election. I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone who was paying attention in 2004. The Republicans were already losing face at that point with their baseless claims that the Democrats were responsible for them not getting stuff done.

I'd imagine that you'd be happier offing yourself by blowing up an Xbox 360 manufacturing facility on your way out. :D It's the romantic in me.

Anyone claiming their candidate in this election can provide everything they claim they can provide while balancing the budget is practicing fuzzy math.

Why waste my life blowing something up that will be a spectacular paperweight after 6-12 months of use?

I'll be here all week. Try the veal special.....it's fabulous.

Mine is doing fine after several years of use.

WHAT??? YOU DON'T GET THE COMEDIC GENIUS THAT WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY SO BEEN BLESSED WITH??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

Mine is still working fine as well.

(flashes karma camera to Kodos's Xbox 360)

And for the record, I'll hear no complaints about me bringing this topic into the thread. Blame Kodos.

(karma camera #2 begins operation)

(looks like someone has already used the karma camera on Sony this generation)

(and the McCain campaign)

At least we're back on topic now.

Thank goodness. For a while there, I thought we'd have to get our own thread.

2008 Early Voting

Website reporting early voting statistics through now. Democrats pulling way higher early vote numbers in the West compared to their registration %'s vs. the GOP.

2004 election results

President- Republican
Senate- +4 Republican
House- +3 Republican

That's fine, but has little basis in reality. Many of the races fall the way they do based on local issues. The Republicans gained a seat here or there, but there was no question that the public was turning against the Republicans at that point in time. The fact that a candidate as weak as Kerry had a shot at winning portrayed that more than anything else could.

That you could say that about the actual election results is priceless.

Take this with a grain of salt as this is anonymous in nature. A Clinton campaign worker is painting a much different picture of the election possibilities in regards to who will win the key states and the polling information being presented. She sounds jilted, but we'll see how it pans out........

RedState: What you were never intended to know in this election

So you believe that public support was behind the Republicans in 2004? I couldn't disagree more and I'm surprised that a liberal partisan would make that claim. There are other factors in voting turnout outside of the actual races. Moral and economic issues at the state level can be just as much of a deciding factor. There were several moral issues on the ballot that assisted the Republicans in the 2004 election. Bush was already being bashed repeatedly for his decisions and the Republican Congress wasn't doing much better.

Similarly, I think that the Democrats were the benefactors of a perfect storm in 2006. The popularity of the Republicans was low, but there were several races that fell their way thanks to localized issues in addition to the dissatisfaction with Republican leadership. It goes both ways.

You mean that wasn't another one of your "jokes"?

Cannibal party supporter?

I think JPhillips was dead serious.

This analysis seems to completely debunk any point you were trying to make:

The Election of 2004

a portion of the article:

Was it Mike Tyson?

Colorado and New Mexico look like they're definitely going Obama's way based on polls of early voters. In both states more than half as many people that voted in 2004 have voted early. With either Iowa or Virginia (where he has big leads in polls) and the states Kerry won that puts Obama over 270 electoral votes.

That article reads like a bunch of talking points were handed out by the McCain campaign.

And once again, you totally missed the point I made. If the moral issues that were on the 2004 ballots in several states that drove Republican turnout were not in place, that status quo would not have held. The Republican Party drove turnout by putting issues on the ballots in key states that would help their candidates' chances. The Democrats would have pulled seats in that election had the Republicans not done that.

1. Dekalb: 158,925
2. Fulton: 142,193

That says all you need to know about who early voting may be favoring in GA. These counties are dems (McKinney anyone).

Honestly, I thought it was even more strongly worded than that. This person will look like a genius or a goat on November 5th.

Using early voter numbers to predict overall turnout in this election could be a pretty iffy move. I think that the deeply partisan Obama supporters are extremely motivated in this election to the point where they want to vote NOW. I don't think McCain voters are nearly as motivated to vote, but they'll still come out and cast their ballot on election day. It's just not a good idea to make conclusions based on a sample that is likely not a cross-section of the overall electorate that will eventually turn out.

and this portion of the article debunks that assertion:


If there were local issues that drove Republican turnout, then how did Democrats pick up seats at the local level?

It seems that there was little to no backlash in the 2004 Federal elections agains the Republicans, but at the local level it seems that there was a change towards the Democrats. So this pretty much refutes both the points you were trying to make. Unless you were trying to say that people were sending a message by re-electing their Republican congressmen, and giving them a warning by electing Democrats at the local level. That is a very tenuous link to make, and goes against your original assertions.

I made no overall conclusions except what the data show. My statement was this could indicative of who early voting is favoring, not necessarily that it will predict election day. :cool:

This is a state that voted for a governor because of a flag, that voted for a do-nothing scumbag like Saxby, and thinks the solution to a drought is to hold a prayer on the capital steps for rain. I think an Obama victory here is highly unlikely.

But the fact that Georgia is even remotely in play right now speaks volumes about how well this election is looking for Obama.

Fear-mongering FTW!

By the way, I think you're right. I would really hate to be a multi-millionaire right now and have to pay higher taxes. I think I'll go work at McDonald's instead.

I think this post needs more love.


:thumbsup:

Fixed.

Yeah, these polls are undersampling black voters so you can't put too much weight into them.

Dude.

In 2004, Bush took Georgia 58% to Kerry's 41%.

Today, the polling average says McCain 51%, Obama 47%. That's a big-ass difference. Georgia shouldn't even be a question for McCain, but by all accounts it's pretty tight.

(I know, I know)... All the polls have fucked up party distribution numbers. We've heard you say that once or a thousand times before.

Don't forget that he also said THE ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS have no basis in reality.

Well they didn't in 2000.

Today's State Polls:


Here's my summation from a few days ago, interspersed with the changes:


I still don't think Arizona is really in play. Neither do I think Louisiana is in play.


I think this conclusion still holds, despite tightening in CO & PA. Of course, if McCain's internal polling was showing a tightening in PA a few days ago, it would greatly explain why he's targeting it, especially when you consider...


Still the case. McCain clearly needs to flip a Kerry state, and I'd say it now looks like PA is the obvious candidate, based on this one poll.


No change here. McCain's looking better in Indiana, but Obama's looking better in North Carolina & Ohio. As an aside, based on the local news (I'm in Chicago), I expect a clusterfuck of epic proportions regarding the voting in NW Indiana.


We are still the same here. The latest NC & OH numbers have to worry McCain a lot, but the big X-factor here would be if he flips PA.

I don't think Obama will win Arizona, but he should visit there. It would be great press for him and bad press for McCain.

I declare the weightings are off on the results that are good for McCain and the weightings are accurate on the results that are good for Obama.

Additional "State of the Race" reflections from fivethirtyeight.com, which I think (IMHO) agree with my conclusions: