SierraSong wrote:realjohnboy wrote:I agree with what Finn seemed to be saying in his carefully chosen words about the TN senate race. Folks, when talking to the press or a pollster, will say that it makes no difference that Mr Ford is black...but when they get into the privacy of the voting booth...
Then in the very next sentence, realjohnboy wrote:We went through that here in Virginia when Doug Wilder ran and won for governor.
Huh? So, in the first instance, when the voters get into the privacy of the voting booth, what? Finish the sentence, please. When voters were in the privacy of the voting booth in the case of Doug Wilder, they (the majority) pulled the lever for him. They obviously thought he was the best candidate regardless of race.
Sierra, Wilder had something like a 10+ point lead in the polls up to voting day; but in actuality he ended up eeking out just the narrowest of victories (one or two percent?).
That was a significantly larger difference than what's normally ever found between polls and the actual results (for example, the average of national polls in 2004 had Bush winning against Kerry by half a percent to one percent and he won with two and a half). And thats why the Wilder case has become something of a famous example of the dichotomy that has tended to occur in the past, in other cases too, specifically between how a black candidate does in the polls vs what people actually do in the ballot booth.
Its apparently called "racial slippage" (with thanks to Italgato's prior persona, of all people, for the reference). I'm hoping it wont occur to anything the same extent with Ford, because times have changed, but considering how tight the race is in TN even a slippage of one or two points could decide the race.
Thank you, nimh, for explainlng what I awkwardly tried to write.
I dont think it was so awkward ... there was nothing inherently "huh?"-worthy about what you said, considering winning/losing an election isnt a 100%/0% thing (eg, of course you can get less than expected and still win, or vice versa).
Blatham, your article from Kansas sure was interesting, and encouraging too!
Here's something in the same direction:
More encouraging, if still cautiously-worded, stuff:
By the way, and this is only tenuously related to anything under discussion here, Tuesday morning at 7:46 am ET the Census Bureau odometer estimating the population of the U.S. will click over the 300,000,000 mark. Demographapers are quick to point out that the margin of error in predicting the time could be days or weeks or even months. But based on census data from 2000 and adding a birth every 7 seconds and subtracting a death every 13 seconds and adding a new immigrant every (x) minutes (I lost the number on that) Tuesday at 7:46 is the time.
We got to 100,000,000 about a 100 years ago. It was chiefly due to immigration in the 1800's. 200,000,000 came in 1967. The person who checked out just before the meter clicked over was probably white and perhaps an immigrant while the two babies born in the same period of time were, statistically, probably white.
The 300,000,000th will probably be a "minority" by today's definition. We more resemble the 100,000,000 mark than we do the 200,000,000 level.
400,000,000 is projected for 2043.
Johnboy will be 97 in 2043. I wrote this but the numbers come from NPR.
(npr.org and then "All Things Considered).
SierraSong wrote:
It does amuse me to see that no one here has actually been able to predict just what seats the Dems will actually take next month. Not here, nor on any of the Lefty websites I've perused. Curious, isn't it?

Oh, I hope that everyone here, Republican or Democrat, will end up making predictions. We may be on different sides but we are avidly curious about the election process.
Here, Sierra et al, are the Senate races that appear to be in play. Let me know by posting who you think WILL win. And feel free to amend the list if you feel there are any sleepers.
Ohio
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
Tennessee
Virginia
So they announce the guilty verdict on November 5, the newspapers have it splashed all over the front page by Monday, November 6, which is the day before Election Day.
The first good news coming out of Iraq in months and it comes out two days before Election Day.
Gotta hand it to him. How did Rove manage this?
kelticwizard wrote:So they announce the guilty verdict on November 5, the newspapers have it splashed all over the front page by Monday, November 6, which is the day before Election Day.
The first good news coming out of Iraq in months and it comes out two days before Election Day.
Gotta hand it to him. How did Rove manage this?
When you have 150,000 troops occupying a country, you do have a little bit of pull with what happens there politically.
Do you suppose this is what SierraSong meant by
"November" surprise?
Makes you wonder how high up the conservative/Republican hierarchy she really is. From her posts as JustWonders, we know she is in there somewhere. But I didn't expect her to be so high up as to be privy to
this information.
I doubt it.
With "November surprise" she was doubtlessly referring to the unexpected Republican hold of House and Senate she implied and insinuated, then backed down from explicitly predicting..
Nimh, Blatham, Sierra et al...
Johnboy likes to play games. Fantasy football, fantasy baseball. There is is even a thread where normally respected members of A2K pick the winners in pro football games each week without knowing doodly squat about the subject. I run that game, and I am a mercilous hustler.
How about a new thread on "Pick the Senate Races?"
I can provide some of the content, as can yall, but we would need someone to put it into a glitzy format.
For example:
VIRGINIA: Repub George Allen (incumbent) vs Dem Jim Webb
Probably 15 races in all, although some of those are not that close.
I think it would be kind of amusiing if we could pull it off.
That seems like fun, rjb.. I'll join if someone starts it .. ;-)
"How generation influences party"
Absolutely fascinating stuff! Click
HERE to see the graph..
realjohnboy wrote:Nimh, Blatham, Sierra et al...
Johnboy likes to play games. Fantasy football, fantasy baseball. There is is even a thread where normally respected members of A2K pick the winners in pro football games each week without knowing doodly squat about the subject. I run that game, and I am a mercilous hustler.
How about a new thread on "Pick the Senate Races?"
I can provide some of the content, as can yall, but we would need someone to put it into a glitzy format.
For example:
VIRGINIA: Repub George Allen (incumbent) vs Dem Jim Webb
Probably 15 races in all, although some of those are not that close.
I think it would be kind of amusiing if we could pull it off.
I only have time for an occasional "drive-by" these days (less than three weeks to go and it's getting wild and wooley), but I'll certainly enjoy reading the comments of the others when this madness is all over.
To whomever it was here that said I backed off a prediction on who will win - I don't really think so. I think I've made it clear enough that my party (Republican) will retain power in both houses. There are too many in this country who will vote as I will, and quite a few who will vote Republican as the "least bad choice" when all is said and done.
Having said that, all this election-year squabbling sometimes reminds me of a favorite quote from "The Hobbit".
"...they were fighting like dogs, and calling one another all sorts of perfectly true and applicable names in very loud voices."
So...carry on.
PS To all the Democrats here: Get your stolen election meme dusted off. You'll be needing to cling to it once again ... next month.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14275232/
map of some of the key races...
Not sure if this is the same poll but I heard one recently concerning the 48 closest House districts and a generic Dem/GOP question had the Dems leading by 15 points.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15319792/
Okay, here is my first attempt at this.