You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. The Mason-Dixon poll has Clinton at 48% to Obama's 43% with undecided at 8%. Don't know if the missing point is some fraction they split or 'Other'...?
TPM Election Central
The Mason-Dixon poll has Clinton at 48% to Obama's 43% with undecided at 8%. Don't know if the missing point is some fraction they split or 'Other'...?
I'm guessing the current undecideds will break toward Clinton by about 3 to 1 putting the numbers at Clinton 54% to Obama 45% because of the old and white nature of the PA electorate.
One wild card in the equation is that students are hard to reach with land line polls because of their tendency to use cells only and I think an unpolled population of students will split by about 3 to 1 toward Obama.
Second puzzle. Black voters are supposed to be about 83% Obama. Really? I think they'll break a bit more toward him.
Possible result then is 53% Clinton and 47% Obama.
But that's guesswork math and me trying to be dispassionate. What does my gut say?
Clinton wins by at least 9% because whitey just keeps on being whitey.
So how did it turn out? As we all now know, Clinton by 10ish%.
How did the 'undecideds' break? Apparently 3 to 1 for Clinton. No surprise there. Probably the 'Bradley Effect'.
Those numbers don't give us real insight into why those white voters voted that way, but a number I heard last night on MSNBC does.
Last night 16% of white voters said that "race" was important to their choice (outside of Philadelphia it was 20% who said this). 75% of that 16% said they voted for Clinton and 25% said they voted for Obama.
Unless I'm too tired to get the math correct, this means that 8% of the votes cast for Clinton were cast by white voters who had a significant...what to say...'concern' about Obama's race.
Margin of victory for Clinton 10%. Without the self-declared number of people who saw race as "important" the margin of victory would almost certainly have been smaller. Let's say one-half of those voters would have chosen Clinton even if race were not a factor for them. In that case she wins by about 6%, or something near what the polls suggested.
Not surprisingly, this means to me that Clinton winning a narrow victory of 5or 6% instead of a big victory at 10% is about the poisonous effect of white racism as a motive for voting. The Clinton campaign (and others) made race a central issue in the last few weeks and it worked to give her a big enough victory to stay in the race.
Whitey just kept on being whitey.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
Last edited by Leonidas; April 23rd, 2008 at 03:14 PM.
The Mason-Dixon poll has Clinton at 48% to Obama's 43% with undecided at 8%. Don't know if the missing point is some fraction they split or 'Other'...?
I'm guessing the current undecideds will break toward Clinton by about 3 to 1 putting the numbers at Clinton 54% to Obama 45% because of the old and white nature of the PA electorate.
One wild card in the equation is that students are hard to reach with land line polls because of their tendency to use cells only and I think an unpolled population of students will split by about 3 to 1 toward Obama.
Second puzzle. Black voters are supposed to be about 83% Obama. Really? I think they'll break a bit more toward him.
Possible result then is 53% Clinton and 47% Obama.
But that's guesswork math and me trying to be dispassionate. What does my gut say?
Clinton wins by at least 9% because whitey just keeps on being whitey.
Yes, it's impossible for any reasonable person to have any doubts about Obama...
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
I think it matters not at all for the election. For it to be anything of importance, Clinton would have to win by 15+%. It would have to be a blowout. Having said that, the fact that she'll win will be enough for her to be convinced she should stay in and further damage the Democrats chances at the Presidency.
Yes, it's impossible for any reasonable person to have any doubts about Obama...
Exactly. It's the same theory that it's absolutely impossible that a white, middle-aged, Republican from Orange County, California would consider voting for Obama in the general election....oh..wait...
jom
__________________ Old men's room wall saying: Flush hard, it's a long way to Washington
Yes, it's impossible for any reasonable person to have any doubts about Obama...
Actually, I'm pretty sure I didn't say or mean to say that. For white voters for whom Obama's race will not be a tipping issue it is perfectly possible to have some reasonable objections on which to base a choice for someone other than Obama. That includes most whites at this point.
But the fact remains that specific appeals to race and/or culture ('isn't Obama a Muslim?') fears are being and will be used to try to decide the election by swinging two or three per cent of the vote in populations where these appeals still work. Those who vote that way are the whiteys who just keep on being whitey.
So one could make the same claim that blackie will keep being blackie because they're voting for Obama?
Obama has earned their votes. How come everyone forgot when Clinton was pulling the majority of black voters? How come people don't remember the exodus of many black leaders from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama last year?
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
It really doesn't matter. We're ****ed no matter who's in office.
Is that what your support for Tom Servo symbolizes? Actually, I don't think that supports your claim. I think nearly anyone would be hard pressed to argue that Tom Servo wouldn't be a huge step up from George Bush. Quicker on his feet, or rollers, or whatever, and a strong sense of irony providing him a much more nuanced view of the human condition than Bush.
What Will Be Clinton's Margin of Victory in PA? 
KINGS17
