pBills Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Let me rephrase, then. Expecting McCain to come close to a Presidential Candidate who was a popular governor in his state, when the results weren't inline with general Party ID, is unrealistic. Winning Texas... he should win that state by more than 10pts. Oh and thanks for rephrasing it.
Chilly Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Winning Texas... he should win that state by more than 10pts. Do you have any evidence that he *should* win that state by more than 10 points, other than the election results of a popular governor of the state? I have valid evidence (Party ID) that says he shouldn't. Oh and thanks for rephrasing it. Well, you don't seem to get it.
pBills Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Do you have any evidence that he *should* win that state by more than 10 points, other than the election results of a popular governor of the state? I have valid evidence (Party ID) that says he shouldn't. Well, you don't seem to get it. Oh dear god. It's freakin' Texas. Texas has voted red for years now. Jesus do you need a link to know that?
Chilly Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Oh dear god. It's freakin' Texas. Texas has voted red for years now. Jesus do you need a link to know that? So, just because a state has voted Republican in recent elections, means that they should get a 20+% advantage there? But, to humor you, lets take a look at some past election results. The number is advantage in percentage points the Republican candidate had over the Dem candidate: 2004 - 22.87 (Governor of State was running) 2000 - 21.32 (Governor of State was running) 1996 - 4.93 1992 - 3.48 1988 - 7.72 1984 - 27.5 1980 - 9.74 Yeah, that 15-20%+ is super realistic.
KD in CA Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Let's review the conversation: 1.) You said it shouldn't be "that close". 2.) I pointed out that the Republican lead is currently slightly higher than the Party ID advantage (and around historical Party ID averages). 3.) You again claim it shouldn't be "that close". What about part #2 didn't you understand? Standard pBills lahjik at work!
pBills Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Standard pBills lahjik at work! And you have your typical dick post.
erynthered Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Standard pBills lahjik at work! If its not about labour, I dont care anything about it. <pdidybills>
pBills Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 If its not about labour, I dont care anything about it. <pdidybills> Typical spin. I said that was the biggest issue for me. Not the only one. Try again. And it's Labor, I'm not from Canada.
Bishop Hedd Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Oh dear god. It's freakin' Texas. Texas has voted red for years now. Jesus do you need a link to know that?Be careful. He is an honest to gawd Texas expert, just check out his livestock/Whitman tower pic! There are a couple past cong. races that sort of allude to the realignment and demo shift we are now seeing. One is Macaca Allen vs Webb Va.
Bishop Hedd Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Party ID in Texas isn't nearly that far off, it's been around a 10% difference between responders to the first part of the question. The gap becomes even more narrow when you take into account leaners to be about equal.How bout you go open a textbook instead? You might realize that realigning elections are based off of coalition groups, which haven't changed all that much this election.I musta left that book in my locker Mr Hand.
Chilly Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Be careful. He is an honest to gawd Texas expert, just check out his livestock/Whitman tower pic! Feel free to prove me wrong. There are a couple past cong. races that sort of allude to the realignment and demo shift we are now seeing. One is Macaca Allen vs Webb Va. A fan of Judis and Teixeira?
Chilly Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 I musta left that book in my locker Mr Hand. 2.5/10
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 The realignment if any is coming from the fact that the Baby Boomers are getting older and their priorities are changing. They now want to keep what money they have and retire. This economic deal is going to make it hard on them and they will need to work for a longer period of time. Probably a good thing for Social Security, but it may cause they normal political evolution of a person as they age to more conservative to change. Additionally, there is a normal pendulum swing that just needed an intervening event to get it going the other direction. That being said, the current divisions remain and won't disappear quickly as some said earlier. The election may change some of the map for the short term, however, I see a slower longer term shift to a more regulated business sector. Also, the Dems are seem to be attempting to lower taxes on the middle class. My question is the states seems to lagging behind this change and taxes, especially sales and real estate taxes have skyrocketed for small business owners and the middle class. Might we have two changes going on at once?
Recommended Posts