Terrible Swift Sword ([info]kenshi) wrote,
@ 2008-09-09 15:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
I am amused by all the Democrats who have suddenly become hard-core defenders of the electoral college system now that the polls are showing their candidate ahead in electoral votes but not the popular vote. Al Gore must be spinning in his grave.

(Post a new comment)


[info]theferrett
2008-09-09 10:20 pm UTC (link)
GOD, that would piss me off.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]theferrett
2008-09-09 10:20 pm UTC (link)
People switching, incidentally. Not the idea in general.

It's the way the system works. Don't always agree with it, but it's probably best overall.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]boffo
2008-09-09 10:44 pm UTC (link)
Also they fail to realize that state-by-state polls generally lag national polls. By the end of the week, the electoral college predictions will show McCain ahead.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]kenshi
2008-09-09 10:48 pm UTC (link)
Agreed. Whether he stays ahead or not is another matter, but the old McCain appears to be back with a vengeance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]boffo
2008-09-09 10:53 pm UTC (link)
I wouldn't be surprised to see some polls come out this week showing McCain with a lead in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. You'll really see some panic among the Dems once it looks like Obama might lose some of the mid-sized or large Kerry states.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kenshi
2008-09-09 10:56 pm UTC (link)
With Michigan at +1 right now, that is a definite possibility.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]boffo
2008-09-09 11:13 pm UTC (link)
Playing around with some electoral maps, there's pretty much no way Obama can win without Michigan. There's an outside possibility if he somehow manages to win Virginia, but that doesn't seem very likely if his campaign is doing poorly enough to lose Michigan. And even then, he'd have to pretty much sweep all the other contested states.

(Obviously if he loses Michigan but wins Ohio or Florida, he's better off. But that seems very unlikely.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kenshi
2008-09-09 11:16 pm UTC (link)
This also gets a lot more interesting if you factor in the Bradley Effect in states with less than 10% black populations.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]boffo
2008-09-10 12:13 am UTC (link)
I'm skeptical of that. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama. Why would a non-Obama supporter assume a pollster will think he's racist, rather than those other reasons? (Even if he really is racist.)

My guess is that pollsters blew the sampling and weighting in their poll, and then blamed racist voters as an excuse.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kenshi
2008-09-10 12:19 am UTC (link)
In this case, I don't think the Bradley Effect is entirely racial. I think it's a case of social confirmation bias on the anti-Bush/pro-liberal front as well as not wanting to be seen as being opposed to the black guy. But I still think it's real. I know that telling anybody in the Seattle area that you're not going to vote for Obama is tantamount to social suicide unless you backtrack and support the Green, the Socialist Worker, or some nonsense like that.

But it's a recurring pattern, and the closest states where Obama leads the polls right now (Michigan, New Hampshire) have very small black populations and entrenched social confirmation bias problems in urban areas.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]foobiwan
2008-09-09 11:52 pm UTC (link)
Al Gore must be spinning in his grave.

Don't tease me like that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]pjammer
2008-09-10 12:35 am UTC (link)
ROR.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]absolutcalm
2008-09-10 01:36 am UTC (link)
Hey, a win is a win is a win-- we learn that from Republicans!

Hypocrisy is an American value- hence so many people turning from Hilary-is-a-whiner to poor-Sarah-is-a-victim-of-teh-Sexismz conservatives.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phanatic
2008-09-10 02:37 am UTC (link)
What would it take to get you to accept that maybe people just don't like the Democratic Party's platform? Are you really so narcissistic that the problem has *got* to be that other people are just incapable of measuring up to your standards? That in the movie drama that's your life, people are doomed to fail because they're liars, or hypocrites, or white, or whatever, and there's no chance whatsoever that have just examined your arguments and found them lacking?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]absolutcalm
2008-09-10 03:33 am UTC (link)
Oh no no no, don't get me wrong-- I really DO believe people like yourself do not like the Democratic party platform. I absolutely, positively do-- and, indeed, I by and large respect the ones who don't go for the personal shit but, you have to admit, that isn't most of your colleagues. At least in my experience.

I just don't believe that most people give a flying damn about the issues. There are the wonks, the internet warriors like yourself and the Dailykossacks and the redstaters, who believe, and there is the Battleground: the people. Those to whom all this propoganda called an "election" is directed.

Most people do not want severely restricted abortion rights. WE KNOW THIS.

Most people want to draw down in Iraq.

Most people want more access to health care, cheaper. But those people would support John McCain despite it-- infact, I've spoken to several of them, just because they aren't "comfortable" with Obama and his "experience"-- they're also excited by the equally inexperienced Palin.

Don't pretend that this pick wasn't about her gender as much as her (scant) gubernatorial experience. That is American Politics.

Stop faking the funk, man, most voters don't give a fuck about the issues beyond the most shallow of talking points. They voted Bush because they liked the man and could drink a beer with him.

Seriously, the Palin bounce was on a speech that SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE ISSUES. She laid out no platform, she said little of her values beyond the "Hockey Mom" stuff, which translates to "Values" whatever those are. They just attacked, attacked, attacked-- and spat on "community organizer" alot, which is funny since Obama did that years and years ago. I wonder, why would they pick that particular phrase (yes, I'm baiting you all and know you'll never acknowledge the truth, just because most people enjoy their selective blindness)?
For God sake, people would accept "Net Neutrality" while also supporting "Video Choice" which just the opposite-- all because of the wording (this is true, Frank Lundz ran the study).

American politics is shallow. Ask yourself, Mr "It's The Issues" why is most of the country polling that they were not so in love with the Republican brand anymore, but people still had to ask why Obama couldn't "seal the deal." Hey, how about why so many people A) want to believe Obama is Muslim and B) would give a fuck even if he were. It's about the same reason why everyone loves their congressperson but hates congress. It's all extremely shallow. And rarely issues-based.

I'm surprised at the vehemence of your reaction to a fairly innocuous comment, though. It's funny. I say "Hypocrisy is an American value" accepting Democratic hypocrisy-- and your immediately reaction is going on the offensive.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]swingland
2008-09-10 03:50 am UTC (link)
don't get defensive. he doesn't it with anyone making a whiny comment. just don't make whiny comments here. it's the best way to avoid a vehement response.

american politics is not about shit. that's okay. dudes like to make money. they're going to continue making money. your whiny "this isn't fair" and "we're all entitled" diatribe isn't going to make you friends here. i see where you're going and kudos, but still. save yourself the increase in blood pressure and write to a more sympathetic group of people somewhere else. i say this from experience.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]absolutcalm
2008-09-10 04:03 am UTC (link)
Uhm... what the fuck are you talking about "this isn't fair" and "we're all entitled." Stop making shit up. I never said nor even implied such things.

And lord knows, I am SO not wanting to make friends here. I just see an entry that interested me on the friendsoffriends and decided to drop a comment. I mean, let's be honest here, me saying it's funny that conservatives are crying sexist after making fun of Hilary for it is not whiny-- it's pointing out something just as amusing as Democrats and electoral college and just as amusing if this whole thing landed in the Supreme Court's lap again and ended the other way.

You know damn well Democrats wouldn't want a recount and you know damn well Republicans would be SCREAMING for one. That's hypocrisy in America.

Me pointing out such things as whining just shows A) you're sensitive and B) you're really taking out someone elses arguments on me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]swingland
2008-09-10 04:47 am UTC (link)
And it looks like we both have way too much time to kill if we're hashing about this. Have a good evening.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]phanatic
2008-09-11 12:23 am UTC (link)
Most people do not want severely restricted abortion rights. WE KNOW THIS.
Most people want to draw down in Iraq.
Most people want more access to health care, cheaper.

Most people understand that the very surge Obama opposed, the one that he's now saying "succeeded beyond our wildest expecations," really meaning *his* wildest expectations, worked. Most people know Obama's going to try to take their guns away, and they'd like to keep them. Most people might very well take note of the fact that Palin didn't do a damned thing to try to make abortion harder to obtain in the state she was the executive officer of.

But no, the reason for Obama's slide in the polls couldn't *possibly* be be cause they've noticed these things, or other things like the fact that the party that's supposed pro-equal-rights got really condescending when faced with a woman with five kids who's trying out for a job more significant than being an advertising executive. It's got to be because they're a bunch of slackjawed yokels who vote for whoever waves the most shiny things in front of the teevee camera, and you're much smarter than they are.

Gotcha.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]swingland
2008-09-10 03:53 am UTC (link)
the democrats are prone to becoming that which they hate the most. which is why they continually lose against a group that doesn't need to. the democrats are reactionists. the republicans don't react, but they do take into account, for changes in the public arena.

obama is a democratically invented machine, meant to pander to an american public that already knows that the party is incapable of delivering ANYTHING.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…