State by State

Oh my god.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

still a lot of racism down here, but i doubt i'm telling anyone something they don't know. they painted the picture today in the paper that this state is solidly behind mccain/palin due to the vp pick, but i doubt that's the case. altho we are a mainly democratic state, there are many who won't vote for obama based on his race, and a lot of misinformation.

There is no more obvious case of racism than what I am seeing in the polling in Arkansas and Missouri. I mean those 2 states are off the table this time, and they are usually not like that. I know states can naturally start to get more red or blue( for example Louisiana has indeed turned more red ...even before Katrina,) but I don't think it's the case with these 2. They stick out this time. They should be polling like Missouri +3 McCain, and Arkansas +5 McCain. They are polling Missouri +7 McCain, and Arkansas +10 McCain!!They were gunna most likely go red anyways. So, I don't think it's going to really be a decider, but I think racism will make the election in Virginia and Ohio pretty ugly. I agree with Kev about the rural Virginians voting by race, but the fact that they have a popular Democratic Senate Candidate that is drawing away by 15-20 makes that state totally in play. That state is(for sure) trending more blue every 2 years. It's a badly divided state, and that's what we have in California as well. There is this thinking that Californis is a blue monolith, and it's not true. It's just 2 main areas that are big blue(L.A. County, and the immediate S.F. BAY AREA.) The rest of the state(the majority of the geography on a map) is red. I think KEV'S state is trending towards this situation. I think he isn't really noticing that some of his states larger population centers are beginning to get the upper hand over the rural conservative areas, and the larger southeast conservative population centers. I think he may not be realizing that the northeast portion of the state is part of an area that grew by a half million people in 6 years time(Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va. +494,220.) That's starting to impact the elections in Virginia (somewhat.) 15-20 % AHEAD BY A DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE IS A LOT(even if it's a conservative Democrat.)

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

OOOOOOOOOO

I don't mean to be a smart ass. Well, yes I do, but I'm sure you are used to that by now. Maybe I'm making a lot of assumptions, so if I am please correct me. I assume that we are around the same age, because I am assuming the 78 in your name is the year you were born. So, I don't think you were predicing the 1980 election and I'm going to assume you weren't predicting the 1984 election either. If you were at age 6, maybe you should be running for office instead of some of the dopes that are now.

That leaves 1988, which I'm still not convinced anyone is really into politics at 10, but if you got it right nice job. I assumed the one you got wrong was 1992, because it was a Dem, and 1996 Clinton was a lock, so you probably predicted that. The two Bush elections you got right. Congrats, but at this point I wonder if you would have actually rather have been wrong about those, considering the nose dive this country has taken the last 8 years. It's like betting a horse that wins by a nose with a perfect trip. And the runnerup has a terrible trip. You're happy you won, but afterwards realize the runnerup was probably best. But, to me, all it really proves is you predict that a Republican is going to win, because you are a Republican.

Like I said, my whole theory is completely assumption based, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

It will be hard for you to top this.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

There is no more obvious case of racism than what I am seeing in the polling in Arkansas and Missouri. I mean those 2 states are off the table this time, and they are usually not like that. I know states can naturally start to get more red or blue( for example Louisiana has indeed turned more red ...even before Katrina,) but I don't think it's the case with these 2. They stick out this time. They should be polling like Missouri +3 McCain, and Arkansas +5 McCain. They are polling Missouri +7 McCain, and Arkansas +10 McCain!!They were gunna most likely go red anyways. So, I don't think it's going to really be a decider, but I think racism will make the election in Virginia and Ohio pretty ugly. I agree with Kev about the rural Virginians voting by race, but the fact that they have a popular Democratic Senate Candidate that is drawing away by 15-20 makes that state totally in play. That state is(for sure) trending more blue every 2 years. It's a badly divided state, and that's what we have in California as well. There is this thinking that Californis is a blue monolith, and it's not true. It's just 2 main areas that are big blue(L.A. County, and the immediate S.F. BAY AREA.) The rest of the state(the majority of the geography on a map) is red. I think KEV'S state is trending towards this situation. I think he isn't really noticing that some of his states larger population centers are beginning to get the upper hand over the rural conservative areas, and the larger southeast conservative population centers. I think he may not be realizing that the northeast portion of the state is part of an area that grew by a half million people in 6 years time(Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va. +494,220.) That's starting to impact the elections in Virginia (somewhat.) 15-20 % AHEAD BY A DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE IS A LOT(even if it's a conservative Democrat.)

i have to admit when i read the article in the state paper the other day, i was surprised mccain was ahead by such a margin. then you read it and think 'yeah, right. that's why he's ahead, palin'. altho i do know that arkansas is an odd state (an understatement for sure) in that it's mostly rural, with a lot of hunters/gun owners-so in that respect they're conservative. also very conservative with dry counties, gay marriage, adoption/foster parenting,etc. but then you look at state and local govt, and it's overwhelmingly dems. it's crazy and doesn't make much sense at all. they're saying that a lot of hillary supporters are switching to palin...but i disagree. i think it mostly has to do with ignorance and fear.

[Mike]

I'm in Vermont. Obama doesn't need to spend one penny here

New Hampshire and Maine can be very different than us, however. I imagine Mainers won't like the threat of the religious right. But, New Hampshire has always loved McCain. Remember their license plate motto:


Live Free or Die

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Mike

I'm in Vermont. Obama doesn't need to spend one penny here

New Hampshire and Maine can be very different than us, however. I imagine Mainers won't like the threat of the religious right. But, New Hampshire has always loved McCain. Remember their license plate motto:


Live Free or Die

and mccain might be fully in agreement with that motto...but palin does not seem able to say the same.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and mccain might be fully in agreement with that motto...but palin does not seem able to say the same.

I agree 100%

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Maine seems gone ( Obama's.) New Hampshire has been pretty consistently polling for Obama, but by a small amount.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

There is no more obvious case of racism than what I am seeing in the polling in Arkansas and Missouri. I mean those 2 states are off the table this time, and they are usually not like that. I know states can naturally start to get more red or blue( for example Louisiana has indeed turned more red ...even before Katrina,) but I don't think it's the case with these 2. They stick out this time. They should be polling like Missouri +3 McCain, and Arkansas +5 McCain. They are polling Missouri +7 McCain, and Arkansas +10 McCain!!They were gunna most likely go red anyways. So, I don't think it's going to really be a decider, but I think racism will make the election in Virginia and Ohio pretty ugly. I agree with Kev about the rural Virginians voting by race, but the fact that they have a popular Democratic Senate Candidate that is drawing away by 15-20 makes that state totally in play. That state is(for sure) trending more blue every 2 years. It's a badly divided state, and that's what we have in California as well. There is this thinking that Californis is a blue monolith, and it's not true. It's just 2 main areas that are big blue(L.A. County, and the immediate S.F. BAY AREA.) The rest of the state(the majority of the geography on a map) is red. I think KEV'S state is trending towards this situation. I think he isn't really noticing that some of his states larger population centers are beginning to get the upper hand over the rural conservative areas, and the larger southeast conservative population centers. I think he may not be realizing that the northeast portion of the state is part of an area that grew by a half million people in 6 years time(Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va. +494,220.) That's starting to impact the elections in Virginia (somewhat.) 15-20 % AHEAD BY A DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE IS A LOT(even if it's a conservative Democrat.)

Scuds....if Warner was in the Senate race against me, his lead would be considerably less. You are blowing that 15-20% lead way out of proportion. Gilmore is as inept a politician you will find. He proved how useless he was as Gov. of Virginia and the people haven't forgotten that. What you need to understand is this....the two are running to fill the slot to be vacated by John Warner (no relation). Mark Warner couldnt defeat John Warner before and doubt he would have done so again.
We been friends a long time, so trust me when I tell you that your whole argument holds no merit. Half the people on this board could give Mark Warner more of a fight than Gilmore.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by GPK

Scuds....if Warner was in the Senate race against me, his lead would be considerably less. You are blowing that 15-20% lead way out of proportion. Gilmore is as inept a politician you will find. He proved how useless he was as Gov. of Virginia and the people haven't forgotten that. What you need to understand is this....the two are running to fill the slot to be vacated by John Warner (no relation). Mark Warner couldnt defeat John Warner before and doubt he would have done so again.
We been friends a long time, so trust me when I tell you that your whole argument holds no merit. Half the people on this board could give Mark Warner more of a fight than Gilmore.

God, the best thing about death is I won't have to see these fkn red states every 4 years. Virginia and Ohio looking impossible to change. I don't think Obama will lose a single state that Kerry won. The 2 incredibly close states last time (N.M., AND IOWA look to be possible OBAMA pick ups.) After that, it's slim pickins. Colorado is slightly polling for him, but it's not gunna be easy. Iowa has been favoring OBAMA. Nevada is close,but I think it will probably stay red. It's a tease. Always looks close, but chainsmokers have been putting it over the top to be a red state. OBAMA has to get Colorado and New Mexico, and Iowa. If any of them go red, then I don't think he can win. Right now, I make it 60/40 for McCain. I have no clue why anybody thinks Obama is gunna win. It isn't looking that way unless he gets very lucky. All these Blacks n' young voters ain't doing **** for him in these states. Looking like 2004 with a couple of minor flips, and he needs like 3 minor flips, or 1 big flip. He has failed to get a big flip(OHIO,VIRGINIA,FLORIDA.) He ain't getting it done. Whites won't vote for him, and Blacks don't vote enough. He could flip Iowa,New Mexico,and Colorado. That would do it. I just feel like either New Mexico or Colorado gunna fk him, and Nevada is just a tease. We probably gunna have another a-hole Republican. Just amazing that the economy is sh-i-t, and people still gotta have their white bread(no matter what.) Ohio is difficult to flip because there's a lot of White Germanic stubborn trash(like Marge SCHOTT was.) Dollar ain't gunna be worth a damn thing if McCain gets it. BE WORTH HALF A FKN EURO. People don't seem to care that Europe's kick'n our a-s-s economically. You know why white people always running this country? They get off their a-s-s n' vote. Colorado and New Mexico could easily be carried by Obama IF THE LARGE POPULATION of MEXICAN AMERICANS THERE GET OFF THEIR A-S-S-E-S n' vote. They won't do it. They deserve to have Whites making most of the laws they gotta follow, because they are generally just too fkn lazy to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...toral_Vote.gif(LOL 2004 PATTERN LOOKS LIKE 4 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.)

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Obama's lead in the exchange market betting has vanishing ever since it was annouced that Palin's 17yo daughter was pregnant.

He's gone from a 2.1-to-1 underdog to a current 1.11-to-1 underdog. Basically PGardn was right about her selection tightening the race.

McCain was a 1.45-to-1 dog the morning his selection of Palin was announced.

He was up to 2.1-to-1 in two days - however - it seems very appearent that one or a few big bettors knew that she had a pregnant 17yo daughter before it was ever reported in the press - and they seriously miscalculated by thinking that would have a negative impact on McCain's chances.

If you look at the way the market moved - you'd think she was an awful inital choice - but when revealed that her 17yo was pregnant - she became a brilliant choice.

However - that's not realistic imo. Crazy stuff anyhow. A little inside info backfiring.

[Danzig]

surely there's more to the movement than the pregnancy? i can't imagine changing my mind on who to vote for over something like that. but then, you never know.
i remember when kerrys folks thought that by showing him goose hunting, kerry could somehow get some voters to change sides. but then, you never know what will swing a voter.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I don't think so Danzig.

Judging by the way money poured in strong for Obama for no obvious reason - and than within hours of the pregnancy being announced - shited back strong in favor of McCain ...

That pretty much suggests to me that a few bettors knew the dirt (5 month pregnant 17yo daughter) on Palin before it got out - and they tried to take full advantage thinking it would be something that would sink an underdog Republican candidate.

I don't think now the pregnancy will have much impact on how people will vote - but it has a huge impact on the odds at a stage when it was private information that hadn't come out.

The Pentagon wisely wanted to establish an exchange betting market on future terrorist attacks for a similar reason.

Not only are markets more accurate than polls - but when people have information that the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't have - they can try to exploit that edge.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54c0a9659c8b63

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I don't think so Danzig.

Judging by the way money poured in strong for Obama for no obvious reason - and than within hours of the pregnancy being announced - shited back strong in favor of McCain ...

That pretty much suggests to me that a few bettors knew the dirt (5 month pregnant 17yo daughter) on Palin before it got out - and they tried to take full advantage thinking it would be something that would sink an underdog Republican candidate.

I don't think now the pregnancy will have much impact on how people will vote - but it has a huge impact on the odds at a stage when it was private information that hadn't come out.

The Pentagon wisely wanted to establish an exchange betting market on future terrorist attacks for a similar reason.

Not only are markets more accurate than polls - but when people have information that the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't have - they can try to exploit that edge.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54c0a9659c8b63

ok, i was looking at it more in terms of the campaign and votes, not for betting and the odds shift.