|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
Really? Why would the Bush campaign possibly care that his new slogan bears a vague resemblance to the name of a long-defunct British TV show hosted by someone with zero name recognition in the US even after his pedophilia scandal?
And besides, what makes you think they didn't Google it? If I search for "Tom can fix it" I get nothing related to "Jim'll fix it"; even trying "Jim can fix it" doesn't do it. There's no reason why searching for "Jeb can fix it" should have turned that up before Gawker posted the connection.
Admittedly, Googling can help in some circumstances. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front might have gone a different direction (Islamic Moro Liberation Front?) had they Googled the abbreviation of the English version of their name (and had Google existed when they were established in 1984.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
One assumes that Jeb is paying people to generate these things. (The other possibility, that he is dreaming these things up himself, is fearful to contemplate.) It is their job to do due diligence, and not let their man tumble into potholes. Even if he is having these ideas himself, it must be somebody's job to vet them. Somebody has to be there to gently tug on the Emperor's bare arm and point out that there are no clothes.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
So there's been a bit of a shake-up in the next installment of the popular reality TV show Republican Presidential Debate. According to Fox Business channel (the sponsor/host) the main event participants will be:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
- Ben Carson
- Marco Rubio
- Ted Cruz
- J.E.B. Bush
- Carly Fiorina
- John Kasich
- Rand Paul
The undercard / minor league / kiddie table debate will consist of:
- Chris Christie
- Mike Huckabee
- Bobby Jindal
- Rick Santorum
There are "only" eight participant in the main event, meaning Christie and Huckabee have been sent down to the minors. More embarrassingly, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki didn't achieve poll numbers sufficient to qualify for even the kiddie table debate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
If "now" means 1992, that's correct.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
Makes sense, considering he never claimed that he had.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
Makes sense, considering he never claimed that he had.
Right. He even wrote way back in 1992 that he didn't.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Article, with quotations from Carson's autobiography
What may be causing confusion is that you never need a scholarship to go to West Point. The tuition is zero. However, you do have to be accepted, and there are demanding criteria, including a recc from your congressman. And to be accepted you do have to apply.
Since Carson says he was offered a full scholarship (wrote it in his autobiography) he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What may be causing confusion is that you never need a scholarship to go to West Point. The tuition is zero.
A distinction with out a difference since it means the same thing.
quote:
However, you do have to be accepted, and there are demanding criteria, including a recc from your congressman. And to be accepted you do have to apply.
There are two types of nomination: congressional and service-connected.
quote:
Since Carson says he was offered a full scholarship (wrote it in his autobiography) he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
Politico has greatly helped his campaign by running this sorry excuse for a hit piece on him.
[ 06. November 2015, 19:14: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Our primary isn't until March and I don't know who will still be running or which primary I would vote in. In either case, we do now know that Politico makes shit up. Not as bad as Hillary lying to the families of those killed in Tripoli about a video, but still pretty pitiful.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
....he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
Certainly not a dis-qualifier for a potential POTUS. (Or even a sitting one)
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One assumes that Jeb is paying people to generate these things. (The other possibility, that he is dreaming these things up himself, is fearful to contemplate.) It is their job to do due diligence, and not let their man tumble into potholes. Even if he is having these ideas himself, it must be somebody's job to vet them. Somebody has to be there to gently tug on the Emperor's bare arm and point out that there are no clothes.
I think that had anyone in Jeb's campaign raised this as a potential red flag, that person should have been fired. There can't be more than a vanishingly small number of Americans (let alone Republican primary voters) who know or care about the existence of that 20 year old foreign TV show, and anyone who is aware of it is extremely unlikely to be of any help in winning the election. This connection is possibly the least problematic thing about that stupid slogan.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
So we’re about one year away from Presidential Election Day 2016 (November 8, 2016) and I thought it might be useful to review the electoral “terrain” the candidates will have to traverse on their quest for public housing on Pennsylvania Avenue.
My baseline template for this is the 2012 presidential electorate. In 2012 51.1% of American voters voted for Barack Obama, 47.2% voted for Willard Mitt Romney, and 1.7% voted for someone else. States (and the District of Columbia) are arranged by vote margin (percentage of Obama voters minus percentage of Romney voters) with the most negative (i.e. Romney-voting) at one end and the most positive (Obama-voting) at the other. The basic, rough assumption here is that any policy or action which moves votes towards a candidate in one state is likely to do so in all the others to roughly the same degree. There are some obvious exceptions. A candidate (or running mate) with strong, existing political roots in one state could affect the vote margin there without really moving the needle anywhere else. If a candidate accidentally says something disparaging about Notre Dame’s football team in front of an inadvertently live mic it could crater their support in Indiana without necessarily doing anything in neighboring Ohio. But by and large policies or candidates which appeal to Republicans or Democrats in Maine are likely to also appeal to Republicans or Democrats in Arizona (or elsewhere).
So, what did the 2012 electorate look like? I’ve classified any state with a vote margin of ten percentage points or more as “safe”. There are twenty “safe” Republican states, controlling 154 electoral votes. They are, in order of descending preference for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama:
- Utah 6 (-48%)
- Wyoming 3 (-41%)
- Oklahoma 7 (-34%)
- Idaho 4 (-32%)
- West Virginia 5 (-27%)
- Arkansas 6 (-24%)
- Kentucky 8 (-23%)
- Alabama 9 (-22%)
- Nebraska 5 (-22%)
- Kansas 6 (-22%)
- Tennessee 11 (-20%)
- North Dakota 3 (-20%)
- South Dakota 3 (-18%)
- Louisiana 8 (-17%)
- Texas 38 (-16%)
- Alaska 3 (-14%)
- Montana 3 (-14%)
- Mississippi 6 (-11%)
- South Carolina 9 (-10%)
- Indiana 11 (-10%)
There are only fifteen “safe” Democratic states (plus the District of Columbia), but they’re generally more populous than “safe” Republican states so they control 191 electoral votes. In order of descending preference for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney they are:
- District of Columbia 3 (84%)
- Hawaii 4 (43%)
- Vermont 3 (36%)
- New York 29 (28%)
- Rhode Island 4 (27%)
- Maryland 10 (26%)
- Massachusetts 11 (23%)
- California 55 (23%)
- Delaware 3 (19%)
- New Jersey 14 (18%)
- Connecticut 7 (17%)
- Illinois 20 (17%)
- Maine 4 (15%)
- Washington 12 (15%)
- Oregon 7 (12%)
- New Mexico 5 (10%)
Any state with less of a vote margin than ten percent I’ve classified as a “battleground” state, one which could go either way. There are fifteen of those, controlling a total of 193 electoral votes. They are (again in order of descending preference for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama):
- Missouri 10 (-9.4%)
- Arizona 11 (-9.1%)
- Georgia 16 (-7.8%)
- North Carolina 15 (-2.0%)
- Florida 29 (0.9%)
- Ohio 18 (3.0%)
- Virginia 13 (3.9%)
- Colorado 9 (5.4%)
- Pennsylvania 20 (5.4%)
- New Hampshire 4 (5.6%)
- Iowa 6 (5.8%)
- Nevada 6 (6.7%)
- Wisconsin 10 (6.9%)
- Minnesota 10 (7.7%)
- Michigan 16 (9.5%)
You’ll note Colorado is in bold there. That’s the state that gave Barack Obama enough electoral votes to retain the presidency in 2012. The fact that he also picked up Virginia, Ohio, and Florida was icing on the cake, but he didn’t necessarily need to win them. In order to win the presidency in 2016, assuming the list of states stays in roughly the same order but vote percentages can be shifted, Republicans will have to retain all the states they won with Romney and shift enough voters to win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. In order to do that, assuming this is accomplished by shifting the vote on a national basis, Republicans need to convince ~2.7% (half the margin by which Romney lost Colorado) of those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 that they should vote for [Republican nominee] in 2016. That comes to ~3.46 million voters, if turnout in 2016 is about what it was in 2012. (An interesting corollary of this method is that it implies a Republican candidate would have to win the national vote by a margin of at least 1.5 percentage points, otherwise they would not have enough electoral votes to win.)
This is, of necessity, a very basic, "back of the envelope" calculation that doesn't factor in questions like the partisan effect of lowering voter turnout or other factors. It's a very basic model.
In summary, the basic “terrain” favors Democrats, but not to a degree that would be prohibitive of a Republican victory.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Sanity check for methodological soundness:
In 2008 Barack Obama won the presidency with a margin of 7.3 percentage points nationally. In 2012 he won with a margin of 3.9 percentage points nationally. In effect, the Republicans shifted the national vote by 3.4 percentage points in their favor in 2012 when compared to 2008.
Q: If the results of the 2008 election are "shifted" by 3.4 percentage points in the Republican's favor (and electoral vote distribution among the states is adjusted to reflect the 2010 census), does that replicate the 2012 election?
A: Almost, but not quite. The downward-adjusted 2008 results correctly predict Barack Obama winning every state he actually won in 2012 except Florida. Downward-adjusted 2008 data says Obama should have lost Florida by a margin of 0.6 percentage points when he actually won it by a margin of 0.9 percentage points, which I'd say is more a measure of the futility of predicting close elections in Florida than the insufficiency of the model. At any rate, Obama would still have won the presidency with 303 electoral votes instead of 332.
More interesting is the group of states designated as "battleground states" by the model. Downward-adjusted 2008 data predicts Indiana and Montana would be close enough to be contestable in 2012, though still won by the Republican candidate. In reality, both were outside the ten point margin I've arbitrarily assigned as the cut-off point for "battleground" states.
Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan were close enough to be considered "battlegrounds" in 2012, though the downward-adjusted model didn't predict this. Arizona could be considered the result of having the Republican presidential candidate be an Arizona politician, though that only seems to have moved the vote by a net three percentage points.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Your criterium for 'battleground states' is much too broad. In contrast to other countries, 10% is a huge difference in US politics.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your criterium for 'battleground states' is much too broad. In contrast to other countries, 10% is a huge difference in US politics.
I don't think so. In 2004 George W. Bush won New Mexico by 0.8 percentage points. In 2008 Barack Obama carried the state by a 15 percentage point margin. Similarly Bush won Iowa by 0.7 percentage points in 2004 and McCain lost it by 9.5 percentage points in 2008. These are both swings of more than ten percentage points. When you're talking about state-level data compared across different electoral cycles, a swing of ten percentage points isn't that unheard of in U.S. elections.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Swings from one election to another aren't that important. That's a lousy prediction mechanism.
Normally, what is called a 'battleground state' is a state that is at play in the upcoming election, a state that could go either way. The majority of 'battleground states' you listed weren't in that category in 2012.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Swings from one election to another aren't that important. That's a lousy prediction mechanism.
I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016. I'm basing this on the observation that the states don't really change their partisan "lean" that much from one cycle to the next (Wyoming is "more Republican" than Texas, which is "more Republican" than Ohio, etc.) By ranking them according to margin, that gives a rough idea of how much the losing party would have to "shift" the electorate from where it was last time to achieve victory this time around.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016.
In that case, 'battleground state' is perhaps the wrong term. This to me seems to be a term that is very much connected to election outcome predicting. I more or less see what you want to do here, but the term 'battleground state' gets me on the wrong foot.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Crœsos: I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016.
In that case, 'battleground state' is perhaps the wrong term. This to me seems to be a term that is very much connected to election outcome predicting. I more or less see what you want to do here, but the term 'battleground state' gets me on the wrong foot.
States with the lowest margins (in absolute terms) would be the ones to 'flip' one way or the other by shifting the electorate, so I'm not sure there's a better term. For example, the electorate as a whole shifted ~9.7 percentage points between the 2004 presidential election and the election of 2008 (nearly my whole ten point margin for indicating which states are most at risk of flipping, if you prefer that locution to the term "battleground"). Thus you had states like Virginia going from picking Bush II by 8.2 percentage points in 2004 to going for Obama by a 6.3 percentage point margin in 2008.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think focusing on battleground states looks like a good way of scoping the terrain. Also, I think that will provide the initial prioritization of the two campaign teams. It looks like the sort of thing a RL "Josh Lyman" of "Leo McGarry" would do. You have to have some initial basis for planning. Coupled of course with the general desire to get off to a fast start in the primaries.
Also I'm not sure how much demographic drift there may have been since 2012. Historically, African American and Hispanic votes go very largely to the Democrats; whether a Carson candidacy might affect that remains to be seen.
So there is plenty of uncertainty. But even at this distance, and barring a major political accident or revelation of course, I think the US is very likely to elect another Democrat as president. Using the West Wing model again, until the GOP finds an "Arnold Vinick" (i.e. an intelligent and experienced moderate Republican) they seem likely to discover again that the candidate with greatest GOP grass roots appeal doesn't have much chance of winning the whole thing.
[ 09. November 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I live in a battleground state (Virginia) and it is a weariness. Already they are phoning me. Tonight we got a call from the Carson campaign. My son politely dismissed them, otherwise I would have offered to trade my vote for a declaration from the candidate that he is Luke Skywalker's father.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like the sort of thing a RL "Josh Lyman" of "Leo McGarry" would do.
sigh. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
...OK, you can carry on now...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sounds like Carson's campaign managers need a "big block of cheese day" (I love the West Wing) with Brenda Clough and her son and others making a pitch about intrusive canvassing methods. "We need to find out whether we can bother you" is a huge put-off.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It is depressing, but I try to regard it as my civic duty. I had not planned to live in a purple state (when I moved here 30 years ago it was not) and I must do my part to help. The menfolk in the family, who are possibly more imbued with the spirit of Christ, try to prevent me from being unkind to cold callers, but there are so many. When I am tired a preprogrammed response kicks in (suggestions welcome: I am considering replying to a request to vote for Carson with 'Would I screw a mandrill?') When I am tanned, rested and ready I take the call as a request for improv theater.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I live in a battleground state (Virginia) and it is a weariness. Already they are phoning me. Tonight we got a call from the Carson campaign. My son politely dismissed them, otherwise I would have offered to trade my vote for a declaration from the candidate that he is Luke Skywalker's father.
I have often suspected that when I get an obnoxious, in-the-middle-of-dinner phone call telling me to vote for Candidate A, that the call is actually from Candidate B's supporters, hoping I'll get so annoyed at Candidate A's harassment that I'll vote for Candidate B.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am considering replying to a request to vote for Carson with 'Would I screw a mandrill?')
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) I double dog dare you! That's definitely big block of cheese information. And also worthy of the Quotes file.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is depressing, but I try to regard it as my civic duty. I had not planned to live in a purple state (when I moved here 30 years ago it was not) and I must do my part to help. The menfolk in the family, who are possibly more imbued with the spirit of Christ, try to prevent me from being unkind to cold callers, but there are so many. When I am tired a preprogrammed response kicks in (suggestions welcome: I am considering replying to a request to vote for Carson with 'Would I screw a mandrill?') When I am tanned, rested and ready I take the call as a request for improv theater.
It's no more your civic duty to be polite to cold-calling canvassers as it is to cold-calling tele or door to door sales personnel. If you think they are canvassing for somebody you regard as useless or a scoundrel, you're as civically entitled to tell them so as you are to tell the people with weird foreign accents who ring you up pretending to be the Windows Technical Department that they are scammers.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The kindly and gentle menfolk argue that these are either minimum-wage slaves or clueless volunteers, and taking out the moronities of the candidate on them is not fair. It is OK, however. When they are home they answer the phone, and do their kindly and charitable thing. When they are not home, heh heh heh. Mandrills to the ready!
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I had not planned to live in a purple state (when I moved here 30 years ago it was not)
Thirty years ago Virginia was bright red, and had been virtually all my life.
So you planned to live in a red state?
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I live in a very blue region of it (near DC and MD), and had no choice in the matter -- my husband got a job here.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
So rather than:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I had not planned to live in a purple state (when I moved here 30 years ago it was not)
It would have been more accurate to say:
"I was not happy to be forced to move to a red state thirty years ago, but I am glad that the concentration of wealth and power around D.C. has started to turn it purple."
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
In 1985, Virginia elected a Democratic Governor with 55% of the vote.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
In 1985, Virginia elected a Democratic Governor with 55% of the vote.
Prior to 2008 Virginia had gone to the Democratic Presidential nominee exactly once in 56 years.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Brenda--
Have you signed up for the National Do Not Call Registry?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda--
Have you signed up for the National Do Not Call Registry?
Politicians and political calls are exempt.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I live in Seattle which is as Blue as it comes. That didn't stop a robo-phone call from Carson last week. He was asking for money so I don't think it was the opposition.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[QUOTE]Prior to 2008 Virginia had gone to the Democratic Presidential nominee exactly once in 56 years.
...and during many of those years, Virginia had a Democratic Governor.
I'm not trying to suggest Virginia was a Democratic stronghold--merely that, rather like the Rockefellers, Virginia's relationship with the political parties has always been a bit more complex than the phrase "bright red" would indicate.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It doesn't really matter, about the past. This coming year, Virginia is a battleground state. And the battle seems to be fought on the phone lines. I am thinking of taking out my land line, and going to only cell phones. Slamming the door works on people who show up ringing the doorbell (it is tempting to hand them a rake and ask them to tidy the yard), and people handing out leaflets in parking lots can be avoided. And I don't watch TV, which saves on huge numbers of campaign advertisements.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It doesn't really matter, about the past. This coming year, Virginia is a battleground state. And the battle seems to be fought on the phone lines.
That’s true. Even though Virginia has only 13 electoral votes, it has enough play that both candidates will be thinking about it. I’m a bit surprised you’re getting as much attention during the primary season as you are, though. In Georgia we are also part of the big Southern primary day, and I haven’t seen a whole lot yet.
Of course, we have no land line and watch most of our television by streaming it. Even so, I don’t expect we’ll see much of the candidates after the nominations are made. Hillary has been to Atlanta to raise money, but Georgia overall is indeed a very bright red right now--perhaps slightly less bright than four years ago, but I still don’t think the state will be in play.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
That’s true. Even though Virginia has only 13 electoral votes, it has enough play that both candidates will be thinking about it. I’m a bit surprised you’re getting as much attention during the primary season as you are, though. In Georgia we are also part of the big Southern primary day, and I haven’t seen a whole lot yet.
Not that surprising. Any Super Tuesday* state is bound to receive a lot of attention. For example, Hillary Clinton's chances of winning Georgia on November 8 (vanishingly small) don't really matter if she can't beat Bernie Sanders there on March 1.
--------------------
*For those unfamiliar with the U.S. primary election system, "Super Tuesday" is a date (usually in early March) in Presidential election years when multiple states (11.5 in 2016) hold their primaries/caucuses.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Arizona is redder than a Starbucks Christmas cup*. We voted Democrat in the 1996 Presidential election for the first and only time since 1948. The Democrats talk about "turning Arizona blue," but our 11 electoral votes aren't really worth the effort for them. The Republicans just take it for granted that they'll win. So we get very few campaign calls for presidential candidates once we get to the election. I imagine registered Republicans may be getting inundated closer to the Primary, and maybe a few Democrats will call. We tend to be bothered much more by state-wide and local elections.
*That would be the version with the flakes, of course.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
For all those who are saying "oh, my state's redder than a red thing painted red under a red light", you are sorely and sadly mistaken.
The actual voting pattern is much closer if you live in a red state than if you live in a blue one.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I like it how they did it with the transparency. I'm also a bit surprised about how many rural counties are (light) blue.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Blue big city mouse, red country and suburban mouse.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Blue big city mouse, red country and suburban mouse.
Think there would be less purple if that were exactly true.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda--
Have you signed up for the National Do Not Call Registry?
Politicians and political calls are exempt.
But even getting rid of sales calls would at least cut down on the threat to Brenda's mandrills!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
