or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's "Appalachia Problem"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's "Appalachia Problem" - Page 4

post #121 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.

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.

So on the one hand we have a guy who went to church and listened to his pastor, with that pastor subsequently endorsing that guy's candidacy for presidency.

On the other, the active courting of a figure with a public record of the above beliefs. And note that McCain has been very slow, and fairly tepid in his rejection of Hagee.

More importantly, there has been vastly disparate depictions of the two figures in the popular media-- with Wright portrayed as a frightening figure of malice, while Hagee...... well, Hagee remains more or less ignored.

It actually makes my point about how racial ideas are smuggled into the conversation, to pretend like this all is hinges on some vital distinction between "sitting in church" and "seeking the endorsement of."

Is it your contention that Obama has been "indoctrinated" into some kind of scary black separatist ideology, and that he will act on that ideology if elected? Because I can't see how any of this is of any concern to the electorate, unless that is the theory.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #122 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

I can read them, I just think a poll of who people actually support in a head-to-head matchup trumps an inference about that head-to-head matchup from an exit poll.
post #123 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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.

Yes, Artman...we've seen those videos before. McCain's senile. He hates the troops he claims to love. Moving on...
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #124 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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

Yes.

Quote:

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

Yes, though I don't see why the matters since we are talking percentages. Why assume that the numbers will break the other way just because more people vote?

Quote:

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?

Yes.

Quote:

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?

Meaningless. The GOP nom has been over for months. Turnout has been low in part for that reason.

Quote:

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?

A better point, but it still doesn't mean much. The numbers I used came from percentages. The raw vote totals don't mean much on their own.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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!

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #125 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #126 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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?

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


Quote:

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.

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

Quote:


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?

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:
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.

Dude...try and keep up.

Quote:

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.

The only poll that contrasted my POV was the one showing Obama up in PA. I did criticize it, because McCain is not even really running at the moment. It was also just about within the margin of error...which is always a good 3-4 points. Taking into account how early it is, the fact that McCain had the nomination sewn up two months ago...that's a statistical dead heat and maybe even a McCain advantage.

We'll have a better idea come early fall. If Obama is leading McCain in places like PA, OH and FL then...you'll have a point.

By the way, even in Oregon, Obama lost the elderly vote and split working class whites. And Oregon ain't exactly a purple state, sport.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #127 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

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.


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

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.

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

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.

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

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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #128 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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.

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.

Quote:




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.

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...

Quote:


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.

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

Quote:

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

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.

[quote]

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

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

Quote:

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.

No Frank, TRY and fucking read. Your lack of understanding here is unreal.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #129 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

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. Yhe 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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #130 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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.

I have conceded that point several times now.

Quote:
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.

Enough to completely negate the effect? There's nothing to indicate that's true.

Quote:

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.

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.

Those three points add up to problems for Obama. His only real strength is among more liberal Democrats. McCain will take the right, center right and the majority of the center...maybe even a small percentage of center-left. Obama will take the left and hard left, and an majority (though not a huge one) of the center left. He will likely lose the lions's share of the center itself. Therein lies the problem.



Quote:


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.

I don't disregard them entirely. They are useful for showing trends and overall mood of the country.

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

It really depends on what one is doing with the data.

Quote:
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.

Wait...weren't YOU just arguing that Obama was up in PA at the moment? Keep in mind, I was talking about EXIT POLLING in states that had just voted., not general opinion polling conducted in states where McCain's name hasn't been mentioned in 6 months.

Quote:
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.

To me it appears that is an absurd argument. You're saying that polling of persons who actually voted within the last 10 days is not as valid as national opinion polls and state-by-state polls in states where the GOP nomination has been over for months. Of course, right before that, you claimed that the state polling data wasn't valid at this point at all.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #131 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

Isn't that what you meant?
post #132 of 163
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?
post #133 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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

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.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #134 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

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?

I was wondering the same thing. Even in the face of this evidence, the media is still whipping the Appalachia story despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #135 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

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.

(Thus the )
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #136 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.

Yah, and amusingly it is rumored that Ron Paul supporters are turning up...I read that Spokane County went well for them. The state convention is what? Tomorrow or something?

That should be amusing.

What's more amusing is catching conservative talk show now and again and hearing them sling arrows at McCain. Of course, I like McCain but its amusing that both parties are equally stupid this year. Typically that's a democratic trait.
post #137 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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

Yep. A choice between an inexperienced socialist gaffe machine and an temperamental, bitter, fence-sitter with bad conservative credentials. There was a palpable "this sucks" among the solid conservatives at NRA Annual. And of course, the requisite Ron Paul supporters were there to save the day, protesting for some reason. I feel about Ron Paul like so many agnostics do about Christians... I love the leader, but have a hard time stomaching some of the followers.

Equally stupid is right... either way I'm going to need some hand sanitizer after turning the lever.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #138 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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.

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.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #139 of 163
The best part is, this with Hagee and Parsley is happening at the same time that every Dem wonk inside the beltway has been trying to figure out a plan for no longer ceding the evangelical vote. It's almost as if the LEFT hand doesn't know what the Wright hand is doing...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #140 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

1. They never were to begin with. It's a moot point.

2. There will be some Republicans that won't support McCain. Another moot point.

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

My data sources, you ask? Same as yours, from thin air.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #141 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

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?

They weren't part of, or bordering on, the former CSA? You know states that permitted slavery.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #142 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


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.

New Orleans destroyed because of the murder rate, WOW.
You do realize how crazy that sounds don't you?

Then again, alot of religious zealots, nuts, will accept these and other ridiculous beliefs as god's will and in some cases, help the lord out by acting on his, her behalf.

Sound familiar?
post #143 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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.

Delusional, simply delusional!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #144 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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

I seriously doubt your even capable of experiencing shame, much less being qualified to declare what is and is not "shameful."

Quote:
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.

Show me where I said Hagee "applauded the actions of the Holocaust." I said he believes it to be the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and you concur. Your point?

Quote:
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.

Show me where it has been "a major theme of the American left" that we brought 9/11 on ourselves."

At any rate, is your point that it is shameful if people on the left think this way, but not so much if right wing preachers do? Do you agree with him? Square your own damn circle.

Quote:
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.

So it's outrageous to note that Hagee thinks New Orleans brought God's wrath down on it, except he did, and you pretty much agree.

You're right, Democrats are totally....... wait, what?

Quote:
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.

What "innuendo"? I just quoted him, and, again, you seem to think that's out of bounds unless I append some kind of bible lesson.


Quote:
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

Stop. Show me where I "lied", or STFU.

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

A principle which I haven't heard anyone on the right claim should apply to Wright, which is my point.

Quote:
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.

Again, my point. The current national discourse affords Wright no context or biblical nuance, while pretty much ignoring Hagee altogether.

You want context and nuance? Where are your posts defending Wright? He's the one being broadly attacked, not Hagee. 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?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #145 of 163
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.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #146 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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?

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!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #147 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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.

Yeah, "the Lord can use bad things to accomplish good things," that's the difference. The rest of us believe that Israel was founded as a result of the Holocaust, yes, but we don't believe that anyone good is responsible for the Holocaust, as Hagee does, because he believes the Lord has punished the Jews for their rebelliousness and sent "hunters" (Nazis) to punish the Jews into getting back to Israel.

Quote:
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.

Yes, and when anyone on the left has stated such sentiments they have been reviled for it by conservatives, despite the fact that religious conservatives have regularly made such statements.

Quote:
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.

So you only think Hagee was wrong on the specifics? And I like how you worship a God who murders everyone, guilty and innocent, for committing the crime of murder. Sounds fundamentally immoral to me, but that's your God, not mine.

Quote:
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.

It sounds to me like you're saying "not only is Hagee right, but it's right there in the Bible," rather than "Hagee didn't say those things."
post #148 of 163
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

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?

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.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #149 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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.

That is a very smart observation, midwinter. In fact, I was talking to a wonk friend of mine in DC about this very thing about three days ago... that there is a "sweet spot" in the black population that does benefit Clinton. He agreed with almost exactly what you are saying, other than the state breakdown.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #150 of 163
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

That is a very smart observation, midwinter. In fact, I was talking to a wonk friend of mine in DC about this very thing about three days ago... that there is a "sweet spot" in the black population that does benefit Clinton. He agreed with almost exactly what you are saying, other than the state breakdown.

Yeah. I started to suspect this when she won OK. I'm not sure where that spot it, but it seems to be there.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #151 of 163
Speaking of Clinton, now it's a vast LEFT-WING conspiracy...
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #152 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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.

... Democrat today?

A racist by any other name would still smell as sour.

States that were as blue as the sky, now run red (e. g. the current Solid South of the current Republican Party) with the blood on their historical hands.

James Jeffords used to be a northern Republican from Vermont, he changed to being an Independent (caucusing with the Democrats), because he could no longer identify with the current Republican Party, in part because it was no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln.

[CENTER]
Quote:
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.

[/CENTER]
More like forever.

Conservatives, at one time, may have hidden behind a different moniker, for obvious reasons (e. g. The War of Northern Aggression and Reconstruction), but they have always been conservatives. They do call it the Bible Belt, you know.

[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #153 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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.

Yeah, that's the racial threat hypothesis: The more blacks there are in the state, the more the state's whites are to vote for Clinton (and to vote for Republicans). It seems like a sweet spot because when there are enough blacks in the state to make a large difference in the D primary, Obama wins because he doesn't need the white vote to win. It's not so much a sweet spot as it is a simple linear correlation between black population size and white voting patterns.

But here's the problem: according to that pattern, Obama should win places like WVa, with a low black population, but he doesn't. Appalachia breaks the black population->white voting pattern seen elsewhere.
post #154 of 163
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Yeah, that's the racial threat hypothesis: The more blacks there are in the state, the more the state's whites are to vote for Clinton (and to vote for Republicans). It seems like a sweet spot because when there are enough blacks in the state to make a large difference in the D primary, Obama wins because he doesn't need the white vote to win. It's not so much a sweet spot as it is a simple linear correlation between black population size and white voting patterns.

But here's the problem: according to that pattern, Obama should win places like WVa, with a low black population, but he doesn't. Appalachia breaks the black population->white voting pattern seen elsewhere.

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.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #155 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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

Someone needs to slap Slick Willie up side the head. Seriously.

Democratic primaries held over a five month period are with more than two nominees, is in no way, comparable to a general election, with just two nominees from the the Republican and Democratic Parties held on a single day in November.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #156 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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

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.

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

It's quite weird. Everywhere else, whites are racist only if there are blacks to be racist towards. No blacks, no racists. Except there.
post #157 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

(Thus the )

Alright, fair enough.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #158 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

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.

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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #159 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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!

His uncle served in the 89th Infantry Division, which liberated Buchenwald, another concentration camp in Germany. But you can try and make fun of a simple mistake if you like. I'm sure we'll all get a big laugh when McCain confuses Sunni and Shia again!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #160 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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.

But Montana is polling strongly for Obama, which is also low down on that list in income. And Utah, North D, and South D are also white and down low on that income list, but also went for Obama.

The way the data look, it's all about black population, with the exception of Appalachia.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's "Appalachia Problem"