Obama's "Appalachia Problem" - Page 4

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Please enlighten me as to the "endorsement" vs "in-the-pew-for-20-years" distinction again?

If you want to talk church membership, we can.

If you want to talk endorsements, I have Hamas cued up for you.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Then you frankly cannot read or will not read exit polls. I'm not going to do it for you.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Don't give a shit about his age, his health or his "cunt" of a wife.

I care that people should be aware of this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And this.

And more of these.

Originally Posted by franksargent

You are talking about exit polls from Democratic primaries, yes?

And you do realize that primary voter turnouts are under representative of expected voter turnouts of the general election, yes?

And you do realize, that even if we were to use these exit polls (not just KY mind you), that Obama would get ~2/3 of the HRC voters, yes?

And you do realize, that if I add that ~2/3 of HRC voters to Obama's primary vote totals, that Obama receives more primary votes, then the entire Republican primary vote totals, yes?

And you do realize, that this is still true, even if I use the early primaries (e. g. through Super Tuesday), using the above criteria, that Obama's total still beats the entire Republican primary vote totals (through Super Tuesday that is), yes?

And you do realize that using primary numbers, might not reflect the voting patterns of a general election, such that I would appear to be rather foolish, if I used them to support my argument, yes?

In other words, your argument doesn't amount to a hill of beans, because primary numbers are not directly indicative of voting patterns in a fall general election, where there are only two major candidates. D'oh!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'm just quoting what the exit polls showed. It could certainly change in the general. In fact, I'm sure it will. the question is how much they will change.

So we're just dismissing all of those exit polls then, hmmm? You sound like Howard Dean. "No worries! It will all be OK. I promise." Really though...go on ignoring Obama's serious problems and pretend it will all be OK in November. Just make sure your head is duct taped in November when you realize that Obama is getting his ass handed to him with white, elderly, working class, moderate and less educated voters.

Originally Posted by franksargent

The question remains, does exit polling data carry significant weight, as long as two nearly equal (vote totals and delegate totals) candidates are still in the primary race?

You have shown numbers from one state's exit poll, that being KY. Oh, and you showed some breakdown of OR Primary voters, not exit polling data from OR.

So based on exit polling data from one state, KY, somehow you are able to extrapolate that data to the general election, which is 5+ month's away? Extrapolate that single exit poll to the other 49 states and DC?

You then go on to outright dismiss recent national polling data, based on what exactly?

The exit poll from one Democratic primary (e, g. KY)? National polling data based on one-to-one matches, which for some odd reason, better reflect the actual situation come November.

I just happen to think you reject polling data that doesn't support your POV, and are only willing to accept polling data that supports your POV. And I ask myself, why am I not surprised.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Let me think...yes. Especially because we're talking about Democrats only. The numbers on race and Rev. Wright are very worrisome for Obama.

I'm pretty sure both were from exit polling data.

No. I extrapolated it, making adjustments in Obama's favor...for certain swing states.

Based on the fact that national polls are meaningless in an electoral college system.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Now you're not even making sense. Only one of the two will be in the fall national election. Your second sentence is anecdotal, it carries no statistical weight, in and of itself.

OR data you presented did not quantify who would, or would not, vote for whom. You have presented this type of data for one state only, that being KY.

Please explain, how you "extrapolated" data from one state (or two states if you prefer) in Obama's favor, and how this "extrapolation" was then applied to the fall general election, consisting of 50 states plus DC.

And who here is defining KY and OR as swing states in this election. OR will most certainly go to the Democrats, and KY will most certainly go to the Republicans. Neither of these "so called" swing states, are in fact swing states in this election.

So your whole premise is that KY and OR are "so called" swing states, and that you can willy nilly like, use these two states to project the fall general election results for the entire USA, which is over five months down the road.

So on the one hand you can extrapolate exit polling data from two states, yet dismiss national polls?

Specifically on what grounds do you summarily dismiss national polls. Your answer "because I said so" carries zero weight, in and of itself.

The rest of your "commentary" is just trash talking. Next time try to make a compelling argument, instead of engaging in your usual wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Try...TRY and comprehend Frank: The numbers are bad for Obama because DEMOCRATS are expressing concerns about his associations and even race. DEMOCRATS are saying they won't vote for him. In the fall, we add independents and Republicans...which isn't going to make it better for him. That's all I'm saying.

I think the 12% number addressed that point exactly. I'm a little busy, so I'm not going to go back and look it up...

Frank, are you on some sort of chemical here? of course OR and KY are not swing states. The point is is that even in a liberal, secure Democratic state like Oregon, there are significant number of Democrats that say they won't vote for Obama.
.

So..(and I'll go slowly for you)....extrapolate some of that data to states that are not as secure. If the number is 12% is Oregon, what is it in PA? It's not less, I'll tell you that

Yes, because it's a state-by-state contest. National polls mean jack shit, unless we're just using them to show a general trend in public opinion.

I just explained it. My prediction is you'll ignore it, again.

No Frank, TRY and fucking read. Your lack of understanding here is unreal.

Originally Posted by franksargent

You act like exit polls are cast in concrete, when it's a given that people will change their minds once the Democratic nominee is selected.

People exiting the polling booth have invested "intellectual ownership" in the person they voted for. So saying something while exiting the polls now, with their then current vested interest, will not reflect what choice these same people will make 5+ months now.

Also in the general election, we can expect about a 2X increase in total voter turnout, and I'd argue that most of them did not have a strong opinion on the Democratic nominee, otherwise they would have voted in the primary, IMHO.

Lastly, I understand your attempt to disregard national polls based on your assumption that voting patterns, for some odd reason do not correlate with Electoral College totals.

The point is you can't discount it completely in a close national election.

Also, that's where state polling data becomes critical, after both nominees have been selected, not before, as you have tried to do with Democratic exit polling data.

So of the two, Democratic exit polling data versus national polling data, at this time, it appears to me that national polling data better reflects choices all voters will make, versus a subset of Democratic primary voters, who are more then likely to change their minds given an additional 5+ months to listen and ponder each candidate's message.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yes, Artman...we've seen those videos before. McCain's senile. He's probably not fit to lead the country. But he's not a liberal. So I'll vote for him anyway.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

If you want to talk endorsements, I have Hamas cued up for you.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hey midwinter: Montana and South Dakota both look to be going for Obama by pretty big margins, and they're both poor, white states like West Virginia and Kentucky. If it's just about being white and poor, why are these two states going for Obama?

Originally Posted by Northgate

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Come on Jube. Even you're smart enough to know that Obama never sought out their endorsement. That would be like some skinhead movement endorsing McCain and then forcing McCain to answer for it. Come on.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I don't need to.. they are the ones (republicans) who are going to the beach or mowing the lawn, rather than spending time voting in a race that has already being decided.

Originally Posted by vinea

Of course, I like McCain but its amusing that both parties are equally stupid this year. Typically that's a democratic trait.

Originally Posted by addabox

McCain actively sought the endorsement of a man who believes that the Holocaust was a fulfillment of biblical prophesy, that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, that Katrina was God's way of letting New Orleans that they had strayed, and that the Catholic Church is a great whore, among other interesting beliefs.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'd argue that's completely wrong. Obviously you're ignorant of the polling data...unless you're saying we can't trust any polling data at all.

Regardless, let's address three points here:

1. Republicans are not going to vote for Obama in any numbers that matter...no matter what the media tells you.

2. There will be some Democrats that won't support Obama. The number looks to be larger than in previous nominating contests, even in somewhat liberal states.

3. Independents are expressing serious concerns about Obama. Additionally, McCain carries real strength with independents.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hey midwinter: Montana and South Dakota both look to be going for Obama by pretty big margins, and they're both poor, white states like West Virginia and Kentucky. If it's just about being white and poor, why are these two states going for Obama?

Originally Posted by Frank777


New Orleans
The Bible declares that God does judge human cities when evil rises to a level that is a personal affront to God and destabilizing to the very future of Man. The most popular example is Sodom and Gomorrah, but others have included Ninevah, Babel, Tyre, Sidon etc.

Hagee errs by elevating the city's known sexual sins and debauchery as the chief reason for its destruction. This is also the generally assumed reason for Sodom's destruction. However, there is enough biblical evidence to point to the idea that the "trigger" for such catastrophic interventions lies in the debasement and devaluing of the image of God himself. That is to say, the arbitrary killing of human beings who were created in the image of the Lord.

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was the continental expert in such activities.

Originally Posted by Frank777

It is shameful how much Democrats will distort and outright lie to make their points.

The Holocaust
Hagee believes that the shame of the Holocaust was instrumental (and thus used by God) in the recreation of the State of Israel. Most secular observers say the exact same thing, albeit without the God part. It is a major theme of the Bible that the Lord can use bad things in human history to accomplish good things. Hagee also believes, as do I, that the recreation of Israel is a modern fulfillment of biblical prophecies written over 2,500 years ago.

At no time has Hagee applauded the actions of the Holocaust, and he is actually one of the leading proponents of overt Christian support of Israel in the U.S.

9/11
It has been a major theme of the American Left that America's arrogance and interference brought 9/11 on themselves, so I'll leave you to square that circle in your own head.

New Orleans
The Bible declares that God does judge human cities when evil rises to a level that is a personal affront to God and destabilizing to the very future of Man. The most popular example is Sodom and Gomorrah, but others have included Ninevah, Babel, Tyre, Sidon etc.

Hagee errs by elevating the city's known sexual sins and debauchery as the chief reason for its destruction. This is also the generally assumed reason for Sodom's destruction. However, there is enough biblical evidence to point to the idea that the "trigger" for such catastrophic interventions lies in the debasement and devaluing of the image of God himself. That is to say, the arbitrary killing of human beings who were created in the image of the Lord.

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was the continental expert in such activities.

The Great Whore
As for the Catholic thing, the idea of Catholicism being the "great whore" of Revelation has been long held by Protestants since the Scriptures foretell that a revival of the Roman Empire will come to pass in Europe and the dominant religious system there will be corrupted and used to pervert the Gospel and do the bidding of the Empire's leader.

It does not take a genius to recognize that there is only one religious agency in Europe that could do the things that are described in the Book of Revelation. This is not the same as saying all of today's Catholics are somehow evil, despite your innuendo to the contrary.


Hagee's a preacher, so it's expected that he would take the Bible's point of view (or his interpretation of it) on any given issue. You don't need to agree with it, but lying about what he says and believes is still wrong. If you don't understand the Biblical reasoning behind his statements, do your homework.

It is unfortunate that you regularly condemn the GOP for distorting soundbites to make Democrats look worse than they are (as with Obama's Pastor), when it is clear you have no problems doing so yourself.

Originally Posted by Frank777

It is shameful how much Democrats will distort and outright lie to make their points.

The Holocaust
Hagee believes that the shame of the Holocaust was instrumental (and thus used by God) in the recreation of the State of Israel. Most secular observers say the exact same thing, albeit without the God part. It is a major theme of the Bible that the Lord can use bad things in human history to accomplish good things. Hagee also believes, as do I, that the recreation of Israel is a modern fulfillment of biblical prophecies written over 2,500 years ago.

At no time has Hagee applauded the actions of the Holocaust, and he is actually one of the leading proponents of overt Christian support of Israel in the U.S.

9/11
It has been a major theme of the American Left that America's arrogance and interference brought 9/11 on themselves, so I'll leave you to square that circle in your own head.

New Orleans
The Bible declares that God does judge human cities when evil rises to a level that is a personal affront to God and destabilizing to the very future of Man. The most popular example is Sodom and Gomorrah, but others have included Ninevah, Babel, Tyre, Sidon etc.

Hagee errs by elevating the city's known sexual sins and debauchery as the chief reason for its destruction. This is also the generally assumed reason for Sodom's destruction. However, there is enough biblical evidence to point to the idea that the "trigger" for such catastrophic interventions lies in the debasement and devaluing of the image of God himself. That is to say, the arbitrary killing of human beings who were created in the image of the Lord.

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was the continental expert in such activities.

The Great Whore
As for the Catholic thing, the idea of Catholicism being the "great whore" of Revelation has been long held by Protestants since the Scriptures foretell that a revival of the Roman Empire will come to pass in Europe and the dominant religious system there will be corrupted and used to pervert the Gospel and do the bidding of the Empire's leader.

It does not take a genius to recognize that there is only one religious agency in Europe that could do the things that are described in the Book of Revelation. This is not the same as saying all of today's Catholics are somehow evil, despite your innuendo to the contrary.

Hagee's a preacher, so it's expected that he would take the Bible's point of view (or his interpretation of it) on any given issue. You don't need to agree with it, but lying

about what he says and believes is still wrong. If you don't understand the Biblical reasoning behind his statements, do your homework.

It is unfortunate that you regularly condemn the GOP for distorting soundbites to make Democrats look worse than they are (as with Obama's Pastor), when it is clear you have no problems doing so yourself.

Originally Posted by addabox

Black preachers don't trigger your Jesus glands? Or are the only bible stories you like the ones where people different from you get slaughtered?

Originally Posted by Frank777

It is shameful how much Democrats will distort and outright lie to make their points.

The Holocaust
Hagee believes that the shame of the Holocaust was instrumental (and thus used by God) in the recreation of the State of Israel. Most secular observers say the exact same thing, albeit without the God part. It is a major theme of the Bible that the Lord can use bad things in human history to accomplish good things. Hagee also believes, as do I, that the recreation of Israel is a modern fulfillment of biblical prophecies written over 2,500 years ago.

At no time has Hagee applauded the actions of the Holocaust, and he is actually one of the leading proponents of overt Christian support of Israel in the U.S.

9/11
It has been a major theme of the American Left that America's arrogance and interference brought 9/11 on themselves, so I'll leave you to square that circle in your own head.

New Orleans
The Bible declares that God does judge human cities when evil rises to a level that is a personal affront to God and destabilizing to the very future of Man. The most popular example is Sodom and Gomorrah, but others have included Ninevah, Babel, Tyre, Sidon etc.

Hagee errs by elevating the city's known sexual sins and debauchery as the chief reason for its destruction. This is also the generally assumed reason for Sodom's destruction. However, there is enough biblical evidence to point to the idea that the "trigger" for such catastrophic interventions lies in the debasement and devaluing of the image of God himself. That is to say, the arbitrary killing of human beings who were created in the image of the Lord.

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was the continental expert in such activities.

The Great Whore
As for the Catholic thing, the idea of Catholicism being the "great whore" of Revelation has been long held by Protestants since the Scriptures foretell that a revival of the Roman Empire will come to pass in Europe and the dominant religious system there will be corrupted and used to pervert the Gospel and do the bidding of the Empire's leader.

It does not take a genius to recognize that there is only one religious agency in Europe that could do the things that are described in the Book of Revelation. This is not the same as saying all of today's Catholics are somehow evil, despite your innuendo to the contrary

Hagee's a preacher, so it's expected that he would take the Bible's point of view (or his interpretation of it) on any given issue. You don't need to agree with it, but lying about what he says and believes is still wrong. If you don't understand the Biblical reasoning behind his statements, do your homework.

It is unfortunate that you regularly condemn the GOP for distorting soundbites to make Democrats look worse than they are (as with Obama's Pastor), when it is clear you have no problems doing so yourself.

Originally Posted by midwinter

My contention has been that there's a threshold of black populations where Clinton does well. I haven't looked, but I suspect that in poor, rural states where the black population is somewhere between 7% and 14%, Clinton wins. In states where the black population is less than 7% or more than 14%, Obama wins.

In other words, if there are enough black folks to bring out whatever racist tendencies exist within the population, but not enough black folks to turn the tide for Obama, Clinton wins. Thus, Clinton wins Oklahoma, loses Mississippi, and loses Montana and SD.

As I have said, this is just my totally cynical theory.

Edit:

OK, KY = 7.4% black
WV = 3.2%
MS = 37.4%
OH = 11.8%
PA = 10.4%

Maybe I should adjust my low end down a bit.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

I love hearing about the "insitutional racism" known as the Republican Party... and no one dares discuss who was standing in the schoolhouse door claiming "segregation forever." And no one dares remind people that the CRA of 68 was passed by northern REPUBLICANS despite the rage of southern DEMOCRATS.



My favorite part is that racism is the stalwart slur thrown about, not based on real racism, but rather on the difference of approach that conservatives versus liberal have in solving problems. Accusations of racism are simply the cheapest way to divert an argument. Just look at this board. It's just part of the mantra for the DNC these days.

In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party. In 1965, he achieved passage of a second civil rights bill, the Voting Rights Act, that outlawed discrimination in voting, thus allowing millions of southern blacks to vote for the first time.

Originally Posted by midwinter

My contention has been that there's a threshold of black populations where Clinton does well. I haven't looked, but I suspect that in poor, rural states where the black population is somewhere between 7% and 14%, Clinton wins. In states where the black population is less than 7% or more than 14%, Obama wins.

In other words, if there are enough black folks to bring out whatever racist tendencies exist within the population, but not enough black folks to turn the tide for Obama, Clinton wins. Thus, Clinton wins Oklahoma, loses Mississippi, and loses Montana and SD.

As I have said, this is just my totally cynical theory.

Edit:

OK, KY = 7.4% black
WV = 3.2%
MS = 37.4%
OH = 11.8%
PA = 10.4%

Maybe I should adjust my low end down a bit.

Originally Posted by Frank777

Speaking of Clinton, now it's a vast LEFT-WING conspiracy...

Originally Posted by midwinter

Does it? I mean, what if that low end threshold is, say, 3%?

Of course, it could just be that appalachia is fully of racists who don't need any black folks to feel threatened.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

(Thus the )

Originally Posted by BRussell

Because it doesn't fit the pattern - here's an article I was looking for earlier that has some really good analysis and figures and such about this. It's before the WVa-Kentucky primaries, but you can see that those places don't fit the pattern, as far as I can tell.

It's quite weird. Everywhere else, whites are racist only if there are blacks to be racist towards. No blacks, no racists. Except there.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Will Hagee eat a live baby on TV? Will McCain implode after a fence-sitting marathon? Will Obama finally figure out that the soviets liberated Auschwitz? Will we all dawn our night-riding coats to vote bitterly in the US of KKK A?

Stay tuned for more exciting unhinged action!

Originally Posted by franksargent

States of the United States of America by income

WV (out of 50): 49, 48, 49
KY (out of 50): 40, 42, 45

And if one were to "throw out" the Louisville area (the Obama vote was much higher there percentage wise), Kentucky locations by per capita income, (you have to drill down that list to #21 before you get outside the Louisville area), then I think KY would be near the bottom (like WV) of the first three lists from my first link.