If It Can Happen In NC... Maybe there is hope.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Todays Metro featured The Best Of... Included in the list was the following:

Quote:

CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT '08

Barack Obama (D) - 27%

John Edwards (D) - 16%

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) - 14%

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) - 12%

John McCain (R) - 8%

Willard Mitt Romney (R) - 8%

Bill Richardson (D) - 6%

Fred Thompson (R) - 4%

Undecided - 3%

Other* - 2%

*Mike Bloomberg, Newt Gingrich, Ralph Nader

CHOICE FOR GOVERNOR '08

Beverly Purdue (D) - 60%

Richard Moore (D) - 16%

Fred Smith (R) - 9%

Bob Orr (R) - 7%

Roy Cooper (D) - 5%

Other* - 3%

*Bill Graham (R), Cherie Berry (R), Ferrell Blount (R) , Elaine Marshall (D)

Obama? In the South? Did you see all those (D)'s? And, top local politician was John Edwards and Beverly Purdue (D). No mention of Dole?

I feel a sea change coming.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,082 • Replies: 31

No top replies

It's a big military state with lots of families feeling the pain.

0 Replies

Hey, that's nice to see...

0 Replies

What are the figures for my state, South Carolina?

0 Replies

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5518.html

Excerpt:

Quote:

Douglas Wilder of Virginia, who made history as the nation's first elected black governor, is preparing to campaign aggressively for Barack Obama, and predicted in an interview that the charismatic young candidate could shatter the Republican Party's virtual lock on the South.

... "I've been tremendously impressed with Obama... He has the ability to be a uniter... I think the country is tired of the 'us' and 'thems.'"

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

What are the figures for my state, South Carolina?

For South Carolina, Pollster provides this overview of graphs, which tracks all the polls that have come out for the state matching leading Republican presidential candidates against leading Democrats.

In each little graph (eg: Giuliani vs Hillary, Giuliani vs Edwards, McCain vs Edwards, etc), every dot represents one opinion poll result (red dots for the Republican, blue dots for the Democrat), and the red and blue lines represent a trendline.

Unfortunately, the graphs have not been updated sine July. But back then, the trendlines suggested, for example, the following results:

Giuliani 44,3% vs Hillary 45,8% (with the rest undecided)
Giuliani 41,7% vs Obama 46,3%
Giuliani 44,8% vs Edwards 46,7%

0 Replies

Thanks for the interesting information. Of course, this is pre-Larry Craig, which may have some impact in this bible-belt, very religious and rightist state.

0 Replies

I looked up some stats and results for the last presidential election, and the Triangle (Raleigh / Durham / Chapel Hill), which is quite highly educated compared to other areas of the state, is turning blue. This area attracts a lot of east coast northerners, which may be tipping the scale towards Democrats.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NC/P/00/map.html

Wake County is the large white county in the center of the state with two little blue counties just to the top left of it. The Triangle pretty much includes Wake (white), the two blue counties adjoining and the white county just below. (Wake, Orange, Durham and Chatham).

The population of this combined area is higher than most clusters of red counties.

Now, see the two dark red counties just below Wake? (just below the large white county in the center)... Those two dark red counties are the proud home of the KKK and the little airport that provided rendition flights for the past few years.

Right below the two red counties, the big white one... That is Cumberland, home of Fort Bragg and the 82nd Airborne. Looks like in 2004 they were already turning blue.

Maybe there is hope.

0 Replies

The Raleigh Metro?

91% of the Liberals in NC reside in "The Triangle." Are these polling results really surprising?

Remember, these are the same "highly educated" people who were ready to draw and quarter the Duke lacrosse team within 24hrs of the allegations being made public and who re-elected the prosecuting DA who has since been disbarred.

What about SC? Maybe (just maybe) in Columbia, but the state as a whole? I don't think so anymore than I think "The Triangle" is representative of NC.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What about SC?

South Carolina? See my post above. Back in July at least, Hillary, Obama and Edwards were all enjoying a poll lead against Giuliani there.

In other "Even there?" news, a set of state polls by Survey USA last month (10-12 August) had Hillary leading both Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Romney not just in Iowa (by 12%, 13% and 9% respectively), New Mexico (6%, 12% and 15%) and Ohio (3%, 7% and 11%), but even in Virginia (3%, 9% and 14%) and Kentucky (5%, 7% and 12%). (Kentucky!).

In fact, out of 15 states polled in those three days, only Kansas remained reliably Republican, with Alabama going for Giuliani and Thompson, but not Romney, over Hillary, and Missouri only going for Giuliani, but not the others, over Hillary.

0 Replies

Here, talking of hopeful trends..

Last month, Survey USA published a multi-state poll in which they pitted Hillary Clinton against three of the main Republican candidates, surveying standard-sized samples in each of 15 states.

The results were almost hard-to-believe positive - for Hillary.

As it happened, Rasmussen came out with two sets of polls days apart from each other just around the same time, which in total covered five states. And the results were just as positive.

So I decided to make a table of those results, to make visible just how large a shift in political preference is tentatively appearing on the horizon.

In the table below, I've paired up the poll results from Survey USA (green), Rasmussen (orange), and other state polls that have appeared in the meantime (in blue), for each of the hypothetical match-ups: Hillary vs Giuliani, Hillary vs Fred Thompson, and Hillary vs Romney.

The numbers are listed by state. The numbers you see listed are the margins of 'victory' (in blue) or 'defeat' (in orange) for Hillary. The margin of victory/defeat for Kerry against Bush are given on the left.

Click to enlarge (and you might have to click again in the window that opens for full size):

HILLARY VERSUS THE REPUBLICANS: WHAT STATE POLLS SAY

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7556/hillarymatchupsbystatejb8.th.png

Note, btw, that the Arizona poll seems to be a bit of an outlier, with results that contrast sharply with all the other ones. So I'd take that one with a grain of salt (if a single poll is out of synch with all the others, there's a good likelihood that it's just off).

0 Replies

Or maybe they remain loyal to McCain there.

Nice graph.

I dunno, I'm starting to hope that Hillary won't be poison if she wins the Dem nomination. Still prefer either Obama or Edwards, though.

0 Replies

Nimh - That looks like a lot of work. Thanks for doing that!

I'd agree on the McCain loyalty being a possible factor for AZ.

There is something to having Bill back in the White House, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary just for that. I also prefer Obama or Edwards.

0 Replies

As you guys know, I've argued that notions of Hilary's 'poisonness' (and 'coldness' and 'shrillness' etc) have been exaggerated and that this has come about mainly as an echo from the enormous black PR campaign run against her (and bill) over nearly two decades. Her campaign and responses to it/her look to be supporting my contention, at least to this point. I expect she'll win the nomination and the presidency, particularly if Obama runs with her. I also expect she/they will head up an effective and inspiring administration.

But the right will, with 100% certainty, fight tooth and nail to retain power. And they play for keeps. Whoever heads the dem ticket will be attacked and buffeted and slandered ceaselessly. Truth or ethics will be irrelevant. Further, the campaigns against them will not terminate at the election. I think be better be prepared for all this.

And there is a real threat up the road. My assumption is that Bush's obvious attempt to keep this level of troops in Iraq through to the end of his term has two strategic components (politically strategic, that is); to satisfy his personal pathologies related to dominance and refusal to personally face or publicly admit error (with the marketing component of portraying a 'reality' that he/his party are on top of it like a dependable daddy-figure), and secondly to push all of the inherent problems in Iraq and the Middle East that he has helped create onto the next dem administration...to make it their war, their problems and their failures.

Whether I have that right or not, it WILL be the case that if the dems win the election, then the right will again do anything it can to promote that administration's failure in the eyes of the electorate. And the tools they have to hand...huge money, degree of media control (see here http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/report ), radicalized ideologies, marketing/propaganda expertise, and the situation in Iraq they bequeath, are formidable.

The great danger here, and this IS what they will go for (unless the whole movement collapses, which I doubt), is a single dem term after which they will reassert power/control and then few vestiges of anything like 'transparency' or 'civil rights, or 'balanced powers' or 'democracy' might be expected to remain, other than as window dressing.

Dems have to win this one. And the next one.

0 Replies

Blatham, I know this is the 10,000th go-round, but my estimation of Hillary's potential poisonous effect is not just garnered by reading, like, pundits who are predicting what people will do. It's based on polls of how people actually react to her, and based on many, many conversations I've had with people IRL and online. JPB is an example of someone who I think is reasonable, not easily swayed by the media machine, and open to voting for the Dems, who has said she'd vote for Hillary only under rather extreme duress.

If Hillary seems less poisonous now than when we started discussing the issue, I think it may be that her campaign has been quite skillfully crafting a new image that is winning over some of the people who were earlier virulently opposed to her. I don't think that means that the earlier opposition was illusory, though, nor that the some who have been won over are necessarily numerous enough to really propel her into the White House. Will Hillary be able to build on gains she's made so far? Will Obama or Edwards start challenging her on the "experience" thing and take her down a notch or two? Could still go lots of different ways.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
What about SC?

South Carolina? See my post above. Back in July at least, Hillary, Obama and Edwards were all enjoying a poll lead against Giuliani there.

In other "Even there?" news, a set of state polls by Survey USA last month (10-12 August) had Hillary leading both Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Romney not just in Iowa (by 12%, 13% and 9% respectively), New Mexico (6%, 12% and 15%) and Ohio (3%, 7% and 11%), but even in Virginia (3%, 9% and 14%) and Kentucky (5%, 7% and 12%). (Kentucky!).

In fact, out of 15 states polled in those three days, only Kansas remained reliably Republican, with Alabama going for Giuliani and Thompson, but not Romney, over Hillary, and Missouri only going for Giuliani, but not the others, over Hillary.

You have an excellent grasp on American politcs, but if you think SC is going to vote Blue and not Red in 2008 you are proving why a native understanding is so important

0 Replies

Okay, "native". Explain why SC is so intractably 'red'.

0 Replies

soz

Sorry, wasn't intending to make Hilary's electability the point of that post. Rather I was looking up the road and thinking about what pitfalls await the dems if/when they take the WH and control both houses.

I think we understand that important and powerful elements of the right will operate outside of any principle other than that they alone constitute valid ideology and valid government (eg Bill Kristol's memo in 92 advising republicans to stop Hilary's medical proposals for the singular reason that it would endear the citizenry to Democrats and gain them new voters...phuck considerations of citizens' health).

To my view, this is not an irrelevant or premature consideration when thinking of the best dem candidate. Obviously, dems MUST win the WH or the US is facing continuing structural revision in the direction of certain Republican dominance for the forseeable future (along with the complimentary aspects of reduced transparency, authoritarianism with its reduced civil liberties, greater differentiation between the wealthy and everyone else, etc)

But winning in 2008 is not enough to remove these threats. Nor are they going to be cancelled out by some hoped for resurgence of 'positiveness' or 'hopefulness' (though it really seems needed) such as Barack's campaign might continue to advance and encourage. Here is where I see a critical need for intimate and broad knowledge of what the right has been doing over the last three decades...the whos the hows and the whats. Unless there is a clear understanding that this is a street fight and unless there is the will to match and best these folks, six years from now could look really ugly indeed for the dems. Bill and Hilary and the folks around them seem as well placed and experienced as anyone might be meet these challenges.

The thinking above is really what sits beneath my wish for a Hilary/Obama ticket. Not trying to argue this so much as explain.

0 Replies

Let me point folks to the following...

Quote:

The Supreme Court Phalanx
By Ronald Dworkin

1.
The revolution that many commentators predicted when President Bush appointed two ultra-right-wing Supreme Court justices is proceeding with breathtaking impatience, and it is a revolution Jacobin in its disdain for tradition and precedent. Bush's choices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, have joined the two previously most right-wing justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in an unbreakable phalanx bent on remaking constitutional law by overruling, most often by stealth, the central constitutional doctrines that generations of past justices, conservative as well as liberal, had constructed.

These doctrines aimed at reducing racial isolation and division, recapturing democracy from big money, establishing reasonable dimensions for freedom of conscience and speech, protecting a woman's right to abortion while recognizing social concerns about how that right is exercised, and establishing a criminal process that is fair as well as effective. The rush of 5-4 decisions at the end of the Court's term undermined the principled base of much of this carefully established doctrine. As Justice Stephen Breyer declared, in a rare lament from the bench, "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20570

0 Replies

Here's Krugman on a point I mentioned above...this is from today's or yesterday's column I beleive.

Quote:

0 Replies

If It Can Happen In NC... Maybe there is hope.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know