Patterico's Pontifications

2/12/2008

Are Republicans About To Draw Into an Inside Straight?

Filed under: 2008 Election — WLS @ 2:13 pm



I know its 8 1/2 months until the general election, but John Fund had an interesting piece up yesterday on the electoral college math in a McCain v. Hillary/Obama matchup. 

He starts from the premise that in the outcome is likely to be closely divided simply because the country has been closely divided for the past 10 years — pretty much going back to the Clinton impeachment.  His analysis doesn’t really address the so-called “enthusiasm gap” between the partisans on both sides. 

But, I think he is of the opinion that where that enthusiasm gap will play out the most is in states where the Dems are likely to win anyway — they’ll simply win by larger margins that Gore and Kerry won by in those states in 2000 and 2004.

And, Fund seems to be of the view that any ambivalence on the part of the GOP coalition will be wiped out by the prospect of another Clinton presidency — Billary will galvanize the GOP regardless of the heartburn the candidate might give particular segments of the coalition.  How an Obama candidacy might impact GOP turnout is still an unanswered question — though the “Bradley Effect” must also be taken into account with Obama.

Going back to the landscape of the Electoral Map, Fund looks at where outcomes from 2000 and 2004 might change the electoral vote totals. 

He notes that even if Ohio was conceded to the Dems this time around, if McCain’s popularity in New Hampshire — reflected in his wins in the 2000 and 2008 primaries — comes through in the general election and McCain carries NH, and all other outcomes remained the same,  the GOP would again win the electoral college 272-268.

In looking at some of the other “purple” states from 2004, Fund sees opportunities for McCain to win states that Bush narrowly won or lost.  McCain’s more liberal position on illegal immigrants would help hold New Mexico, and it might make him more competitive in California if Obama was the nominee, given Clinton’s wide lead over Obama with Hispanic voters in the west.  Forcing the Dems to spend money in Calif reduces the amount they would be able to spend someplace like Colorado.

Colorado is another purple state that has trended towards the Dems in recent statewide races.  But McCain is a fellow “Western mountain state” resident whose views are closely aligned with those of Colorado.   Bush won Colorado by 150,000 votes and then 100,000 votes, but its shifting demographic is working against the GOP.  McCain is the one candidate who can probably blunt that change and hold onto Colorado. 

Fund also mentions Oregon, Wisconsin, and Minnesota as states that Bush narrowly lost to Kerry.  Bush lost Oregon by only 7000 votes in 2000, and by 80,000 votes in 2004.  McCain’s history as a maverick who operated independently of GOP leadership would play well among the independents in Oregon, who have a history of electing moderate GOP senators statewide — Packwood and Gordon Smith.  Smith’s position against the war puts him at odds with McCain, so Oregon might be a bit of a reach. 

Not so with Wisconsin and Minnesota.  Minn Gov. Tim Pawlenty is mentioned among possible running mates.  Bush lost Minn by 60,000 votes in 2000 and 100,000 votes in 2004.  But McCain’s maverick status would make him more popular here than is Bush, and Pawlenty was re-elected in the anti-incumbent/anti-GOP election of 2006.

Wisconsin is a very purple potential takeover for the GOP, made more so with Pawlenty on the ticket.  Bush lost Wisconsin by 6000 votes and 12,000 votes in 2000 and 2004, respectively. 

One other rust belt state that might be more competitive is Michigan.  Bush lost Michigan by 220,000 votes in 2000, but closed that margin to 160,000 votes in 2004.  Michigan has been an unmitigated economic disaster under Dem. leadership since Granholm was elected Governor in 2002.  The same problems that plague the GOP in Ohio may haunt the Dems in Michigan in 2008 — especially if Clinton is not the nominee and the AA vote turnout is suppressed by Obama not being at the top of the ticket.

Another state that McCain could resurrect for the GOP is Pennsylvania.  Bush lost Pennsylvania twice — by 200,000 votes in 2000 and by 140,000 votes in 2004.  But Penn. is also the state that rejected Rick Santorum but re-elected Arlen Specter.  The key to McCain winning Penn. is in the suburbs of Philadephia — and Arlen Specter is the King there.   McCain and Specter are close friends, and I see Specter doing everything in his power to bring Pennsylvania back to the GOP. 

What purple states might the Dems pick up besides Ohio?  Iowa was lost by Bush in 2000 and won by him in 2004.  McCain’s history of voting against ethanol subsidies probably dooms him there, and puts those votes in the Dems’ column. 

Florida went from being a 500 vote winner by Bush to a 380,000 vote winner by Bush in 2004.  Its probably not within the reach of the Dems with popular Gov. Crist an early endorser of McCain.

Missouri is a bellweather state, nearly always in the column of the winning candidate.  But Bush increased his victory margin in Missouri from 80,000 in 2000 to 200,000 in 2004.  That’s a big number for the Dems to turn around in a generally conservative heartland state.

Nevada has become more conservative over the years, and a growing Hispanic population would put this state in play for Hillary against any opponent other than McCain. 

Tenn went from an 80,000 vote loss by Gore to a 350,000 vote loss by Kerry.  It’ll remain with the GOP.

Which leads to the biggest prize and potential switch for the Dems — Virginia.  But Bush won Virginia by 220,000 votes in 2000 and 260,00 votes in 2004.  McCain probably plays better in N.Va. than would a more doctrinaire conservative candidate, and George Allen still nearly pulled out his race against Webb even after his “Macaca” moment and the universal attention and scorn of the MSM.  I don’t see the Dems grabbing Viriginia in 2008 against McCain. 

Which gets us to the “Bradley Effect” — this could be a post of its own.

We can agree, I think, that Billary would generate enthusiasm for the GOP coalition while leaving segments of the Dem. coalition a little cold.   Her high negatives take many possible swing voters off the table, and against a candidate like McCain, who has historically drawn the support of independents, Billary faces a tough electoral map in the few places where she might be able to flip states.

So, would Obama have a better chance?  Not if you believe in the “Bradley Effect”.  I was a resident of Los Angeles in 1982 while attending UCLA, and I was in Virginia during much of 1988 and 1989 leading up to the race between Doug Wilder and Marshall Coleman.  So I’ve seen it play out twice from up close. 

And those of you that are younger saw it a few weeks ago in New Hampshire and then again in Nevada. 

What is it?  Its the FACT that mostly white voters will tell pollsters in advance of an election, and again in exit polls, that they intend to or did vote for an African American candidate, but in the solitude of the voting booth they do not do so. 

In 1982 Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was thought by pre-election and exit pollsters to be a comfortable winner for Governor in California over George Duekmejian.  In fact, exit polling called the race for Bradley, and some newspapers printed their morning editions with Bradley as the winner on the front page.

But Bradley lost by 1%, and the polling was off by as much as 6-8%.  Post-election voting analysis showed that a smaller number of white voters had actually voted for Bradley than had claimed to have voted for him, and “undecided” voters broke in favor of Duekmejian by a much larger number than anticipated. 

SImilar results were noted in the race between Douglas Wilder and Marshall Coleman for Gov. of Virginia in 1989.  Wilder had a comfortable lead in the polls just before the election, but won by less than .5%. 

Obama saw the Bradley Effect up close in New Hampshire where his predicted +10% victory evaporated into a 3% defeat as late deciders broke in overwhelming numbers to Hillary; and in Nevada where all the “momentum” was said to be with Obama only to have Clinton beat her in a caucus state by 6%.

So, if the Bradley effect can happen within a closed primary system of the Dem. party, what might be the impact of the Bradley Effect in a general election for President?  

I suspect its worse than the Dems want to imagine, and the Clintons will be putting it out on the table for all to see in the weeks ahead.

47 Responses to “Are Republicans About To Draw Into an Inside Straight?”

  1. The antagonism between blacks and Hispanics will also play a role in the election. This will add to the “Bradley effect” which is as much liberal piety and wishful thinking by lefties as racism.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  2. Thanks, WLS.

    JD (d5bd6e)

  3. I’ve been in agreement with this thinking for a while. Republicans have a very good shot at winning if it’s McCain/Clinton. Clinton will not pull as many votes on the Democratic side as Obama would (some of his people will stay home) and will bring out more voters on the Republican side (Ann Coulter notwithstanding). Obama is trickier, but still quite possible.

    JayHub (0a6237)

  4. I suspect its worse than the Dems want to imagine, and the Clintons will be putting it out on the table for all to see in the weeks ahead.

    And when they do, it’s gonna be ugly. Blue on blue ugly.

    Pablo (99243e)

  5. I’m having a hard time believing that Obama’s substance-free campaign would wear that well all the way until November. Likewise, I have a hard time believing that the nation really wants another experience of the Clinton disfunctional marriage in the White House.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  6. I don’t think that there’s a Republican who could win Minnesota this fall. The difference in the increase in Democratic turnout for the caucuses is more than Pawenty’s margin of victory. Only if they showed up for the caucuses and then don’t show up to vote Democratic. Possible, but very unlikely.

    htom (412a17)

  7. Republicans are going to lose big. No oval office, fewer seats in the legislature, and probably a gubernatorial election here or there. That’s what happens when the supposedly-conservative party tacks left.

    The Big Tent was supported by conservatism. When you abandon your foundation you are set up for failure.

    H2U (81b7bd)

  8. John McCain is a conservative any way you slice it. He may not be 100% on your scorecard, but he’s a conservative on social issues and economic issues. Has he done things that conservatives object to? Sure, but what politician in office for 20+ years has not.

    Ronald Reagan did a lot of things before he became President that doctrinaire conservatives would have found objectionable if he had done them as President.

    The tent hasn’t collapsed, and conservatives will likely prosper from the debate. McCain has a lifetime rating from the ACU of 84, and a lifetime rating from NARAL of 4, having voted 123 out of 128 times in opposition to the position advocated by NARAL on legislation.

    He wasn’t my first choice, but there would be about 1000 names between him and Clinton or Obama.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  9. Now this from Penn. Gov. Ed Rendell on the Bradley Effect in Pennsylvania:

    “Pennsylvania Govenor Ed Rendell, to the editors of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

    Gov. Ed “Don’t Call Me ‘Fast Eddie’ ” Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

    “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,” he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. “I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was —well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother “articulate”], charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so.”

    So being black cost Lynn Swann five points?

    Pennsylvania votes April 22.

    H/T Campaign Spot at NRO.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  10. John McCain is a conservative any way you slice it.

    WLS, that’s just wrong and you ought to know it.
    2006 ACU Ratings
    How is a SIXTY FIVE in 2006 an indication of conservatism? Since Clinton’s second term ol’ John has slipped further and further left. Why in blue blazes would anyone want to reward him for that?

    He is not a conservative. He’s just slightly to the right of Joe Lieberman.

    H2U (81b7bd)

  11. “He starts from the premise that in the outcome is likely to be closely divided simply because the country has been closely divided for the past 10 years — pretty much going back to the Clinton impeachment.”

    Interviews with 852 adult Americans were conducted December 19-20, after the House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton. Do you approve of the way Bill Clinton is handling his job as president?
    Approve 73% Disapprove 25%

    And Bush now?

    Approve 30% Disapprove 66%

    Of course you liberal media were playing the “country divided” bit too under Clinton so I can see why you got confused.
    This election is the democrats to lose though. And they’re giving you a choice between a black man or a woman; both better politicians than anyone since HRC’s philandering husband, but that may not be enough.

    blah (cc959a)

  12. I suspect its worse than the Dems want to imagine, and the Clintons will be putting it out on the table for all to see in the weeks ahead.

    How would the Clinton campaign put the Bradley effect “on the table”, particularly if it’s expected that they would so so surrepticiously?

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  13. Of course you liberal media were playing the “country divided” bit too under Clinton so I can see why you got confused.

    Nice cherrypicking, blah.

    A poll with only 852 participants from a nation of 300 million vs. a slew of current polls.

    This, then, is the standard of “a good argument.”

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  14. Besides, blah, it’s easy to win high job approval numbers while not taking on anything controversal!

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  15. And they’re giving you a choice between a black man or a woman;

    But not a choice between a good President who happens to be a black man or a good President who happens to be a woman.

    nk (514d4e)

  16. I can read McCain’s numbers as well as you can.

    What I see is that McCain has always tended to vote against the grain in the Senate — whether his party was in control or the Dems were in control.

    His numbers are in the 90s during the early year’s of the Clinton Admin. when the GOP was the opposition party, and for two years was in the minority.

    When the GOP gained control of the Senate and set the agenda, his numbers began to drop — meaning he voted against his own party’s initiatives to some degree.

    When Bush took the WH, McCain continued to oppose his own party’s inititatives, and his numbers continued to drop.

    But, its not like he suddenly started voting for Dem. sponsored legislation that began to pass.

    Yes, I understand he co-sponsored CFR with Feingold, and it passed mostly with Dem votes. And I disagree with him on it.

    But, if McCain is to be faulted for his inconsistent voting record, then we should both be honest enough to admit that the record is generally voting against Congress doing things regardless of which party is the proponent and which is the opponent of the legislation.

    Frankly, I’ve always been of the view that we would be better off as a country if Congress only met in session every other year — it would cut down by half their opportunity to screw things up. So, a Senator that just votes “NO” most of the time — regardless of the subject matter — would be an improvement in my mind.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  17. Anyone can draw to an inside straight. The problem is hitting it.

    It’s not just the enthusiasm of Democratic voters in Democratic states, it’s the apathy of Republican voters everywhere. Look at the primary turnouts by party. Including New Hampshire.

    Look for the Democrats to win in NH, NM, IA, VA, CO, OH, MO; even MT, NC, and NV aren’t out of reach. Don’t just look at 2004. Look at the 2006 Senate races and remember that brand GOP isn’t any more popular now than then. You really think McCain’s reasonable immigration stance will save him running for a party whose connection to the Hispanic vote is crumbling?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  18. The primary is not the general, Andrew. do you really think the Dem is going to take IA?

    Pablo (99243e)

  19. WLS, his conservative rating has dropped and continues to drop. That is not how a conservative should be acting. McCain is a horrible candidate and the November election will only confirm that fact.

    H2U (81b7bd)

  20. paul, you don’t know much about polling do you?
    And look at some others from the same period.
    nk, you think Bush II is a genius so there’s nothing else to say.

    “How would the Clinton campaign put the Bradley effect ‘on the table’”
    They’ve been doing it for a while. Here’s the latest
    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/10/is_clinton_campaign_stirring_u/

    blah (cc959a)

  21. blah is back to form. When he/she/it has nothing to say, just copy and paste a link to TPM. You are a good little foot soldier, blah.

    blah – If opinion polls are the deciding factor, Pelosi’s 22% approval rating ought to scary the ever living hell out of you.

    AJL – Nuance. Apathy is fine internally in a primary. I doubt there will be nearly as much apathy in the general when the choices are Barry O or Hill/Bill.

    blah – In your words, how does one put the Bradley effect on the table? Inquiring minds would like to know.

    JD (8f1753)

  22. For those of you relying on the differential in primary votes cast as a sign of the enthusiasm gap, I would refer you to NRO where David Freddoso has a post up pointing out that in nearly every election cycle Dems vote in much higher numbers in the primaries than do Reps. Not sure why, but it seems to be pretty consistent even when there isn’t much of a race on the Dem side. The only example I noted in the last 30 years was 1996 when Dole and Kemp fought it out while Clinton was unopposed.

    That figures, since 1996 was the first year a Dem President ran for re-election without a serious primary challenge since FDR.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  23. WLS – Then I will pray that you and Freddoso are right, because the enthusiasm gap has been my biggest concern going into this election cycle.

    JD (8f1753)

  24. paul, you don’t know much about polling do you?

    I nuked your poll comparison for what it is, and that’s your best response?

    And look at some others from the same period.

    You made the fauty comparison; I simply ppinted it out. To make it valid your Clinton poll (as in one poll cited in a news story, not the actual poll) while linking to an agreggate site to show your point about Bush.

    If you actually presented a decent argument (links to similar agreggate polls woud be a start) that contained substance (not simply style points) I would take you more seriously.

    So would most of the other commenters on this blog.

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  25. No, Paul, it would take more than that before I took blah seriously about anything.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. Paul – That is asking a bit much, no? I would settle for them not lying about the content of linked information, but for me, they have set the bar pretty damn low.

    JD (8f1753)

  27. SPQR, JD: It’s all relative, which is why I wrote “more seriously”…not “seriously.”

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  28. There is that, Paul.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. not lying about the content of linked information

    Oh, come on, JD. Refuting them with their own links is nearly always pure comedy gold.

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  30. It seems John does not remember 92 or 96. Hatred of Clinton is not enough to win! GOP lost 2 times in a row running on just hate.
    We need something positive and the flip flopper from Az is not positive.
    A clinton race will be close but McCain will lose. He will lose even worse against Obamma.
    Look at Wa and now Va – John does not inspire the GOP. He inspires lefties and they will be more inspired by the Dem.

    Rod Stanton (664bdf)

  31. Paul knock yourself out.

    “blah is back to form. When he/she/it has nothing to say, just copy and paste a link…”

    God, you’re an idiot. It’s not my story and it’s not about my opinions. I’m not going to retell the history of the 30 Years War, The Glorious Revolution, or The Battle of Agincourt in my own words when I can simply point you to a reference. I’m not here to teach trigonometry or calculus either. The narcissism is mind-bending.

    It’s… not… about… you… or… me. It’s… about… issues… subjects… data… actions… and… ideas. Got it? It’s called THE EXTERNAL WORLD.

    Are you Jewish? Do you have Jewish relatives in Maryland? Are they Democrats?
    If so, they have received hate mail from Democrats telling them that Barack Obama is a Jew-hater and/or an Israel-hater.
    In the last few days, every Jew I know in Maryland has received this, along with warnings not to vote for Obama on Tuesday. This is not a GOP effort; the GOP does not care who Jews vote for in the primary on Tuesday.
    This campaign is about the ugliest example of using race to defeat a political opponent that I’ve ever experienced. Race I say? Yes, because the whole campaign is predicated on the idea that conservative Jews do not like African-Americans and will believe that any African-American is hostile to Jews.

    And if you’d been following the news you’d know that Bill (“The First Black President”) hasn’t been living up to that name much either.
    And while we’re at it, independents broke for Obama tonight OVER McCAIN!

    blah (cc959a)

  32. Paul knock yourself out.

    So you link to a Google search?

    What, can’t come up with specific details?

    Reread my previous comment:

    If you actually presented a decent argument (links to similar agreggate polls would be a start) that contained substance (not simply style points) I would take you more seriously.

    That means building your case with credible evidence with specific links and quotes from those links that buttress your point, not generally make it for you.

    Like our esteemed host and his guest-blogger lineup.

    Or the better commenters here.

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  33. Actually, blah, the 30 Years War is far more interesting than anything you’ve written. In fact, I’d rather watch Omar Sharif in the terrible movie about the 30 Years War titled “The Last Valley” than read your comments or your random links.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  34. It’s not my story and it’s not about my opinions. I’m not going to retell the history of the 30 Years War, The Glorious Revolution, or The Battle of Agincourt in my own words when I can simply point you to a reference.

    What, you’re incapable of writing a three or four sentence summary?

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  35. Obama is the Starbucks coffee of politics. In every imaginable way.

    nk (616f8b)

  36. I apologize to WV, I left them out of 08 Dem pick-ups.

    Andrew Lazarus (eefd7d)

  37. And while we’re at it, independents broke for Obama tonight OVER McCAIN!

    They were on the same ballot?

    Let’s try again … blah – In your words, how does one put the Bradley effect on the table? Inquiring minds would like to know.

    Never mind. How about giving us an idea that you even know what the Bradley effect is? I will give you a hint, blaming the Jooooooooooooos has nothing to do with the Bradley effect.

    Sorry, I could not resist.

    JD (8f1753)

  38. With all respect to H2U, who wrote:

    2006 ACU Ratings
    How is a SIXTY FIVE in 2006 an indication of conservatism? Since Clinton’s second term ol’ John has slipped further and further left. Why in blue blazes would anyone want to reward him for that?

    He is not a conservative. He’s just slightly to the right of Joe Lieberman.

    I don’t think H2U actually read that site carefully.

    2006 ACU ratings for McCain: 65
    2006 ACU ratings for Lieberman: 17

    So Lieberman is just to the Left of McCain?

    For comparison, both HRC and BO have 2006 ACU ratings of 8.

    This is the kind of hyperbole that will cost the Republicans the White House, and will give us a withdrawal from Iraq, and at least three Lawrence Tribe Supreme Court justices.

    Ideological purity is expensive.

    Again, everyone has a choice, and I respect that. But I hope that voters will keep their eye on the ball—-and keep in mind that most elections are indeed the lesser of two evils.

    Don’t like McCain? Great, I get it. But giving the White House to HRC or BO is what will happen if we don’t get it together.

    Remember that we were able to get GW Bush to rollback on Miers. How much influence will the conservatives have when President Clinton II or Obama nominate a passel of Ruth Bader Ginsbergs?

    Eric Blair (d57d58)

  39. Eric, hyperbole is necessary when your party is nominating a sure loser. The relevant information at that link is McCain’s rating and how it has a distinct downward pattern. Where. Will. It. End?

    We’re going to lose, and I’d rather it be Barrack Obama in the oval office than the Clintons. The GOP needs a wake up call, and what better way than to re-register as an Independent and vote as I choose.

    h2u (57b696)

  40. Obama will not be kind to Israel.

    His track record, to the extent that it exists, is 100% liberal.

    His attitude is one of “yes we can,” the kind of unthinking liberal pablum that lead to the Oslo Accords, a miserable failure. He’s the kind of inspiring leader who can get stupid liberal Jews to go along with him and sell out their own security interests for nothing in return except a reminder, five years down the line, that Palestinians don’t want peace and can’t be won over with sweet smiles and good feelings.

    He goes to a church that elevates blacks over everybody else. Those kooks naturally treat Israelis as whites and Palestinians as blacks. They see Israel as South Africa.

    Obama can only harm Israel. Maybe if he moved to the West Bank and ran for office there, with his cult-leader charisma, he could convince Palestinians to accept peace with Israel. That’s just about the only way he could do any good for the region.

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  41. One out of every five Democratic primary voters were independent — and those voters chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, 67 to 32 percent. Seven percent of the voters in that contest were Republican voters who decided not to vote in their own party’s primary – they chose Obama by an even larger margin, 71 to 25 percent over Clinton. Self-identified Democrats also chose Obama, 59 to 20 percent.”

    blah (cc959a)

  42. “We’re going to lose, and I’d rather it be Barrack Obama in the oval office than the Clintons. The GOP needs a wake up call, and what better way than to re-register as an Independent and vote as I choose.”

    “One out of every five Democratic primary voters were independent — and those voters chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, 67 to 32 percent. Seven percent of the voters in that contest were Republican voters who decided not to vote in their own party’s primary – they chose Obama by an even larger margin, 71 to 25 percent over Clinton. Self-identified Democrats also chose Obama, 59 to 20 percent.”

    blah (cc959a)

  43. blah – Go back and read what you just posted, and then explain to us how this proves your assertion that Independents broke for Obama OVER MCCAIN tonight. I know, you might get a headache, and might not be able to find what you are looking for, but I think we can do some good here. Obama and McCain were not on the same ballot, so, unless the voter was making their own ballot, they never had a chance to vote for Obama over McCain.

    And, we will patiently await your insightful dissertation on how the Bradley effect is being put on the table by Hill/Bill. Doesn’t it pain you when the party of tolerance starts acting like racists? I love it when identity politics collide.

    JD (8f1753)

  44. I can’t get anything through the spam filter. It’s all in there.
    g’night.

    blah (cc959a)

  45. Blah quoted:

    Seven percent of the voters in that contest were Republican voters who decided not to vote in their own party’s primary – they chose Obama by an even larger margin, 71 to 25 percent over Clinton.

    blah, has it occured to you that maybe they were throwing a monkey wrench into the works?

    A campaign flier created by a precinct captain for Sen. Barack Obama urges Nevada Republicans and independents to switch party affiliations “for a day” and caucus in the Democratic primary in order to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton.

    The flier, which was distributed in the Reno area, calls on voters to support Obama “if you think a Democrat will win in November and you don’t want Hilary [sic].” It criticized Clinton for having “voted for the war when it was popular,” and for taking “money from the special interest groups.” Her nomination, the piece concluded, “will continue to polarize the country.”

    Don’t worry, it’s a safe link for you…HuffPo.

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  46. And while we’re at it, independents broke for Obama tonight OVER McCAIN!

    Independents have no reason to vote in the R primary. It’s over.

    I am very seriously considering voting for Hillary on 3/4, and it isn’t because I want her to be president. I won’t be voting for a Republican next month. That is for sure.

    Pablo (99243e)

  47. “This is the kind of hyperbole that will cost the Republicans the White House, and will give us a withdrawal from Iraq, and at least three Lawrence Tribe Supreme Court justices.”

    And of course there is no consideration of the idea that conservatives should work on culture change, is there? Nor is there any consideration of conservatives developing their own litigation strategy (think Phill Kline’s prosecution of Planned Parenthood).

    I swear; conservatives continue to be one-note Johnnys on this, and conservatives continue to wonder why a conservative judge goes against his/her president.

    Brad S (f4a3ad)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1044 secs.