jasonxctf

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 18, 2008 -> 05:24 PM) That the Bible belt is socially conservative and prefers a socially conservative President? but why lower with Obama then with Kerry?

interesting fact. Not sure though. The southern states where Obama did better amongst white voters than Kerry were... Kentucky, North Carolina, Virgina, South Carolina and Texas. The states where it was even, were... Tennessee, Oklahoma, West Virgina, Georgia, Missouri and Florida.

I don't think that this has been discussed here.. but while Obama has resigned from the Senate, I don't think Biden has. Good reason why too... Senate was 51-49 before the elections. New Senate doesn't take office until January. With Obama's resignation, it stands at 50-49. If Biden resigned, it would be 49-49 and thus a tie. Cheney then becomes the tie breaker and pushes control back to the Republicans until January. Just an interesting tidbit.

its an odd trend, that only affected these 5 states. So the question, is why these 5? As for the black voting for black, versus white voting for white, that's a great point. However, did the black population vote with Kerry at say 90% or so back in 2004? So if Obama got 93-94%, that wouldn't have been that different.

from fivethirtyeight.com Southern States- % of White Vote From 2004 to 2008, there are 15 southern states examined. The examination was on what % of white voters went for Obama in 2008, versus Kerry in 2004. Of the 15... 5 states voted for Obama in a higher %, 6 states voted for Obama at the same % and 4 states voted for Obama at a lower %. The 4 states whose white voters supported Obama at a lower %, then they did Kerry in 2004, were... Arkansas- 6% lower Mississippi- 7% lower Alabama- 8% lower Louisiana- 10% lower What do these stats tell us about these 4 states, if anything at all?

OFFICIAL http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/pre...sp&c_id=nyy

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/pre...sp&c_id=nyy

on mlb.com player search... Player Team Position Wilson Betemit CWS 1B

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 08:45 PM) true, then its fair to say that Bobby needs 33 saves to get to 150. and Buehrle needs 28 wins next season.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 08:26 PM) I appreciate the time and effort you put into figuring this out, but is 125 actually a milestone number in any regard? I mean, milestones usually go in increments of 50. true, then its fair to say that Bobby needs 33 saves to get to 150.

Buehrle- 3 wins away from 125 Dotel- 17 saves away from 100 Jenks- 8 saves away from 125 AJP- 2 HR's away from 100 AJP- 16 2B's away from 250 Konerko- 2 HR's away from 300 Konerko- 43 RBI's away from 1000 Konerko- 21 2B's away from 300 Dye- 3 Hr's away from 300 Dye- 9 RBI's away from 1000 Dye- 6 2B's away from 350 Thome- 9 HR's away from 550 Thome- 12 RBI's away from 1500 Thome- 3 2B's away from 400

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 12:54 AM) Bush was inaugurated in Jan 1989, which means there was two full years at least before the recession started. By the most conservative definitions of the velocity of money through the US economy takes 12-18 months, with a minimum consideration of 6 months. So if someone has "shut their mouths" when you call that a Reagan recession, they should not, because it is long past the commonly accepted theories of how long it takes for fiscal policy to affect economy. The 2002 recession on the other hand started about 6 WEEKS after GW Bush took office, or WAY under what is considered normal for velocity of money to take affect on economy. But then again, if you would like everything after 6 weeks or so into office economically to be Barack Obama's fault once in office, that is fine. I have less problem with it as long as you are going to be consistent. my point here, is that everyone (recently conservatives) want to blame Clinton for everything that went wrong with the economy. Following their logic, the 1991 recession would either have to be GHW Bush's fault or Reagan's fault... both options, which would be unacceptable to them because it had to be a Democrat's fault. it's just a harsh way of logic/reasoning. personally, I agree with some of the other posters in this. The President themselves have a minor impact on all of this. If its anyone in governments fault (which we can certainly debate) its the legislative branches.

i love the blame game... even lately I've heard conservatives say that this financial mess is all "Clinton's fault". Reminds me back in 2002-03 when we had that recession, they called in the Clinton Recession. When that happened, I said ok... when we had the 1991-92 recession, was that the Reagan Recession??? Quickly, people shut their mouths.

f*** joe lieberman. the guy has every right to support whichever candidate he wants, but he took it way to far. The guy needs a reminder that the democratic senators he was so actively campaigning against, supported him and Gore in 2000 and some supported him when he was running in the democratic primary in 2004 for President. then in 2006, when he's on life-support, many Democrats still supported him or chose to sit on the sidelines with the senate race against Ned Lamont. (and I believe Obama was one of them, at least until Lieberman lost the Primary) then, as a way to thank Obama for not campaigning against him, or supporting the other guy during the Primary, he stabs him in the back to support, campaign and speak at the RNC for McCain.

they live in rural wisconsin, you make the call.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 2, 2008 -> 04:39 AM) So theyre obviously all democrats? i have no idea, but i'll make an educated guess that they are drunks, welfare receipients and wife beaters.

as hawk would say... "stretch" I better not run for President. My dad's half aunts/brothers and sisters are probably 5x worse than Obama's.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 31, 2008 -> 05:13 PM) Couple areas. Sampling differences Phrasing of the questions Identification issues "I'm calling from the Obama campaign and would like to ask you a couple questions . . ." so wouldnt the internal polls be more favorable to the candidate calling, and the externals less favorable?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 31, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) Well, in all fairness, both the Obama and McCain campaigns have said they think Iowa is closer than most polls show according to their own internal numbers. However, I've been thinking... I would tend to say that campaigns would be rather conservative in their polling. They probably have various levels of poll data on any given state. One would be "best case scenario". Another would be "moderate expectations". and the other would be "past results based". My theory is that Obama's "past results based" polls show a state like Iowa much closer. But even their "moderate expectations" have him fairly solid. Just today the McCain camp said Iowa is "Dead even" according to their internal numbers. A serious question... and I'm not picking on McCain here. How can someone's internal polls be so different than the external polls done, in many cases, by professionals? SurveyUSA 10/28 - 10/29 658 LV 3.9 55 40 Obama +15 Marist 10/23 - 10/24 645 LV 4.0 52 42 Obama +10 Rasmussen 10/23 - 10/23 700 LV 4.0 52 44 Obama +8 NBC/Mason-Dixon 10/22 - 10/23 625 LV 4.0 51 40 Obama +11 Quad City-Times/R2000 10/19 - 10/22 600 LV 4.0 54 39 Obama +15 Big10 Battleground 10/19 - 10/22 586 LV 4.2 52 39 Obama +13 SurveyUSA 10/08 - 10/09 692 LV 3.8 54 41 Obama +13 Research 2000 09/29 - 09/30 600 LV 4.0 55 39 Obama +16 Rasmussen 09/25 - 09/25 700 LV 4.0 51 43 Obama +8 Marist 09/18 - 09/21 467 LV 4.0 51 41 Obama +10 Quad-City Times/R2000 09/15 - 09/17 600 LV 4.0 53 39 Obama +14 SurveyUSA 09/17 - 09/18 702 LV 3.8 54 43 Obama +11 Big10 Battleground 09/14 - 09/17 643 RV 4.0 45 45 Tie Des Moines Register 09/08 - 09/10 616 LV 4.0 52 40 Obama +12 CNN/Time 08/31 - 09/02 828 RV -- 55 40 Obama +15 Univ. of Iowa 08/04 - 08/13 617 LV -- 50 43 Obama +7

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Oct 31, 2008 -> 05:13 PM) I stopped when it referred to Iowa as a "true tossup". He'll crush McCain here. I think a better question will be if he's closer to 55 or 60%. New Hampshire: 29 polls since May 1st. 19 showed Obama with a lead, 2 showed McCain. And the McCain ones were from 45 days ago. Average Obama lead in the state is 12 pts, hardly a tossup. (next to no chance???) Iowa: 22 polls since May 1st. All 22 showed Obama with a lead. Average Obama lead in the state is 11 pts, hardly a tossup. Virgina: 22 polls since October 1st. All 22 showed Obama with a lead. Average Obama lead in the state is 6.5 points. Colorado: 30 polls since September 1st. 29 showed Obama with a lead. Average Obama lead in the state is 6.5 points. Can one, or two or three polls be wrong? Sure... can 19, 22 or 29 all be wrong? Doubtful.

Props to fivethirtyeight.com on this awesome analysis. (graphs didn't paste through so checkout their website) In Oregon, Turnout is Down, But Especially in Red Counties Uniquely among the 50 states, Oregon conducts the entirety of its voting by mail, which among other things can provide early clues as to what the electoral battlefield might look like elsewhere in the country. Surprisingly, perhaps, turnout is down this year in Oregon. According to statistics compiled by the state's Elections Division, the state has received 522,188 ballots through the first seven days of its early voting window. This compares with 645,473 ballots received during the first seven days of 2004 -- a 19 percent decline. There are many possible reasons why turnout has been sluggish in Oregon. The state, a hotly-contested battleground in 2004, has been largely ignored by the presidential candidates this year. But also, Oregon has been subject to a relatively nasty and senate race, and there is some feeling among voting officials that Oregonians are turning in their ballots later and later each year as they familiarize themselves with the early voting process (in which case, turnout should eventually catch up to its norms). More importantly, however, the counties most culpable for the depressed turnout appear to be those that voted substantially for George W. Bush in 2004. For example, in Multnomah County, which is largely coincident with the reliably liberal Portland, turnout is down 16 percent as compared with the comparable period in 2004. Downstate in more rural Douglas County, meanwhile, where Bush received two-thirds of the vote in 2004, turnout is 27 percent off-pace. We can look on this a bit more systematically, focusing at the 16 Oregon counties where population exceeds 50,000. In all 16 counties, turnout is behind its 2004 pace. As you can see, however, the counties experiencing the steepest declines are mostly red counties, whereas the drop-off has been milder in the blue portions of the state: We can also look at a scatterplot of these results: Although the data contain a handful of outliers, that is a reasonably strong trend. Note also that I have extended the regression line to predict the behavior of hypothetical counties consisting entirely of Bush voters, or entirely of Kerry voters. In regression line predicts that, in a county consisting of 100 percent Bush voters, turnout would be off by about 40 percent. Conversely, in a county consisting entirely of Kerry voters, it would be essentially unchanged. (I checked to see whether these results may have been dictated by patterns of population growth -- perhaps people have been moving out of the Republican counties and into the Democratic ones. Growth, however, has been fairly uniform across Oregon over the past four years, and so this did not materially affect the results.) One underdiscussed scenario in this election is the one wherein Republican base turnout is relatively low. Although this has generally been an engaging election with engaging candidates, the base remains considerably less enthusiastic about John McCain than it was about George W. Bush, and McCain is also lacking Bush's ground game. While the natural assumption is that Democrats would prefer a large turnout, what they are really aiming for is something in the medium-to-high range: one where their base turns out but the Republican one doesn't.

no doubt sr ruined jr's chances of being anything other than a congressman/mayor. no chance at statewide office.

2 votes for Obama (incl the wife) from Geneva, IL.

Duckworth... the Jackson name is tarnished.

tough District for a Democrat to win in... but then again, I thought that about my 14th District.