Good news on the North Carolina front

Email Print posted by Tarheel88 04/25/2008 07:15:45 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Good news on the North Carolina front. Exams at UNC do not end until May 6th, dorms close May 7th.

Good news on the North Carolina front. For those of you worried that one of the strongest pillars of Obama's progressive coaliton, ie., students, might not be available in the NC Primary (everybody going home for the summer), you have nothing to fear.

Exams end on May 6th (May 7th at UNC-Charlotte and the other smaller campuses), and the dorms don't close til May 7th. The administration at UNC Chapel Hill was nice enough to give the 20,000+ students on campus that final day to go hit the voting booths, and celebrate Obama's win that night.

Expect a BLOWOUT in North Carolina. Polls show Obama leading by 15 to 25% points in our state. And, contrary to what the Clintonites might argue, North Carolina is a BIG STATE too! We have 9 MILLION residents! So therefore, Obama should pick up as many delegates as he lost in PA, perhaps more, and about 150 thousand votes more than Hillary in the popular vote as well.

We are the TENTH LARGEST state in the US (in terms of population)! Why is it the Clintonites play up Ohio and PA in their very flawed "big state" argument, but Georgia and North Carolina (9th and 10th largest respectively) don't count in that catagory!

Oh, that's right, those "Big States" in the South like Obama, so Hillary says you better not count them.

 

 

< Cenk Quote of the Day -- April 24, 2008 | Florida lawmakers debate offering a Christian license plate >
 Display:
Good news on the North Carolina front | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)
Yee-Haw! (none / 0)
What can BROWN do for you?

by MedfordTim on 04/25/2008 11:51:30 AM EST

The Marlboro Man (none / 0)

I'd say he looks pretty danged good in that hat, although I'm not sure the tall fellow at the right edge of the photo would agree. Sends a tingle up my leg, anyway. 


by Verified1 on 04/25/2008 03:45:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yet another reason Barack should win (none / 0)
No other candidate even comes CLOSE to looking as good as he does in a cowboy hat.

by jarett on 04/25/2008 11:53:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It always got to me (none / 0)
how HRC could get away with totally dissing states like North Carolina and Virginia, which to me are much more relevant and say a lot more about the campaign than PA ever did. If Obama can take these kinds of states in November, he will win in a landslide and bring a lot of Dems with him. No one in the MSM is even mentioning this, underestimating Obama again. It's like Cenk says, the HRC campaign and the MSM completely downplay EVERY state that Obama wins, no matter how big.

by mijoh on 04/25/2008 01:12:37 PM EST

She explained this (none / 0)
Those are like Louisiana, "African-America electorates" that don't really count.

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 01:53:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
NC White Voters (none / 0)
You might be surprised, Rich. NC has always been a purple state, despite Jesse Hems. North Carolinians have a great deal of respect for integrity. They tend to vote for people who are straightforward and non-equivocating and Helms was seen that way. To a certain degree, it doesn't matter all that much what the policy postition is, but whether you can bring it off with authority. The Clintons are VERY unpopular here, especially with whites. If Obama can be extremely clear about his positions and come off with moral integrity when campaigning here, it will be a cake walk for him.

by Verified1 on 04/25/2008 03:30:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Purple (none / 0)

I have been looking at this pretty close.  I don't know that we can call North Carolina purple.  Here is the NC results with a positive number being Dem, negative Republican.  First number is raw, second is relative to the result of the election (if the GOP won by five, I added five).

2004: (-12.43)  (-9.97)

2000: (-12.83)  (-13.35)

1996: (-4.69)    (-13.21)

1992: (-0.79)    (-6.35)

1988: (-16.26)  (-8.53)

1984: (-24.00)  (-5.78)

1980: (-2.12)    7.62

1976:  11.05   &nbs p; 9.05

1972:  (-40.58)  (-17.43)

1968: (-41.53)   (-27.30)

1968 is when the South flipped to the GOP.  Nixon did this by offering them a deal: you let us have our tax cuts and we will let you keep your racism.

Over this time North Carolina has been the 16th most GOP state, right ahead of Texas.

And if you are wondering about 1976 and 1980, Carter ran both those years and pulled the South significantly to the left. 

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 04:05:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Office Hours? (none / 0)
Hey Rich, I think I need a student teacher conference here. Give me a clearer idea please about your numbers - sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say. I assume you are just talking presidential election totals and not looking at senate, house or gubernetorial races, or looking at individual counties' breakdowns, etc.

by Verified1 on 04/28/2008 02:52:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 0)

The first number is raw presidential election margin with negative being a Republican win.

The second is the number you get if you take the margin of the general presidential election and subtract it from the NC result.  This answers the question is the state more or less Dem or GOP than the national average.

I did not include Congressional (much less state and local elections) since we are discussing impact on the presidential election.  If I have time (or if you do) I will look at the other stuff. 

Seems I recall some trial lawyer winning a statewide election for Senator there as a Dem a few years back.

by ProfRich on 04/28/2008 09:24:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clarification (none / 0)

Thanks Rich for the clarification. I think you and I are just calling purple differently. NC has a lot of Dem state legislators and frequently elects Dem governors. Take a look at the 2004 election

Except for the crazies on the Piedmont northwest of Charlotte, Tarheels can be said to go both ways. Not at all the hard core Dem haters that outsiders would imagine. Our federal house delegation is not all Repub either.

I don't think Edwards would be re-elected here, mostly because he wasn't a very responsive senator to his constituency. He was widely seen as someone who was using his senatorial seat as a leg up to the presidency, not because he really cared about North Carolinians.

by Verified1 on 04/30/2008 11:51:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well then... (none / 0)
Here's hoping the Dems win the Tar Hell State.  Funny thing, I think Texas may trend Dem and you think NC might.  If we are both right they are really fucked.

by ProfRich on 05/01/2008 12:04:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey Rich, time for a reality check! (none / 0)
All of this tough talk about how Barack Obama is a lead pipe cinch this year is really making me laugh.
 
Take a peek at the exit poll results from Pennsylvania.
Only 53% of people who voted for Hillary Clinton said they would vote for Barack Obama in November if he wins the nomination. And 25% of the Pennsylvanians who voted for Hilary Clinton said they would vote for John McCain if Barack Obama is the nominee.

Considering how many Democrats voted for Hillary over Obama in Pennsylvania, that’s a lot of “McCain Democrats” we can count on in November.

Here's how Nora O'Donnell reported the poll results on MSNBC: 
"NBC News poll specifically asked Clinton and Obama voters what they would do if their preferred candidate did not win the nomination, and they were faced with the following choice:  Support the other Democrat or vote for John McCain or stay home.  First, as you see here, only 53% of Clinton voters said they would vote for Barack Obama.  That's stunning! Only 53%.  And when you look essentially at Obama voters, 69% said they would vote for Hillary Clinton if she ends up the nominee.  And what about those new voters that we were talking about, remember, more than 300,000 new Democratic voters in Pennsylvania today?  Check out this number: 29% of those new voters said they would not vote for Hillary Clinton in November."


by KenTX on 05/01/2008 03:29:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jerk off (none / 0)

You remember when all the Republicans were gonna vote for Obama or Hillary rather than McCain?  Then McCain got the nomination?  Its kinda like that.  We shall see.  Lets watch the polls after the first time Hillary gives Barak a big hug on the campaign stump. 

Lets see, with those number McCain is tied with Obama.  That means every time a Hillary voter comes over to Barak Obama gains one and McCain loses one.  And you think this is bad news for Obama? 

Is this your first election, Ken? 

by ProfRich on 05/01/2008 09:30:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
whistling past the graveyard (none / 0)
I expect you to be able to analyze the numbers better than the other participants.

The only congressional districts that Obama is winning contain: (1) major university (2) state capital (3) high black population. He can't win the general election like this. Poor white people don't like him. Period.

Obama hasn't won a significant state since Wisconsin, way back in mid-February. His problem is that there is a shortage of white wine sippers as far as his candidacy is concerned.

by KenTX on 05/01/2008 01:39:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I ain't whistling past shit (none / 0)

What the hell am i suppose to do?  I voted in my primary and now I am telling everyone I know to make their choice, see who wins and unite behind that person.  Either the party will and the Dems will win or they won't and it will be a very close election.   I know that.

The second point is silly.  First, what you said was Obama only wins the districts that have people in them.  Wow, devastating.

The last point is nonsense.  First, their have been seven primaries since Wisconsin.  Assuming by "significant" states you mean ones Wisconsin size or bigger there have been three.  Texas (which he actually won), Ohio and Pennsylvania.  I guess saying what you said sounds a lot more impressive than Obam lost Ohio, Pennsylvania and the popular vote but not the delegate count in Texas.

Here is another way to say it.  Since 2/9 (Wisconsin), Hillary's "big surge" has netted her (drumroll please....) ONE delegate!  (cue fanfare!!!)

Obama's post Super-Tuesday surge netted him 113 delegates.

 
But its all about Super Delegates, right?  During Hillary's surge? Hillary has grabbed 27, Obama has picked up 86 So the Hillary surge you describe has meant -61 super delegates and +1 pledged for a net total of -60.

Obama's Post-Super Tuesday surge?

22 for Clinton vs. 32 for Obama.  For a net of +10 Supers and +113 pledged for a pickup of +123 for Obama during his surge.

So, yeah, he's really collapsed since Wisconsin. 

by ProfRich on 05/01/2008 02:13:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I will keep it simple. (none / 0)
I have studied the heck out of this election, and come to the following conclusions:

1. Obama supporters will support Hillary in very large numbers (99%) if she receives the nomination fair and square.

2. If Hillary steals the nomination, she could lose a lot of black votes, especially if McCain chooses Collin Powell as his running mate. (Don't laugh, the McCain people are already studying this option.)

3. If Obama wins the nomination, a relatively large number (10% or more) of Democrats will vote McCain, and a relatively large number of Democrats (10% or more) will simply stay home in November.

4. McCain can cause a commotion by selecting somebody like Collin Powell, Christie Todd Whitman, or Evan Bayh as his running mate.

5. Obama can cause a commotion by selecting Bill Richardson as his running mate. (this would be a smart move)

6. Barring a significant economic downturn, Obama cannot win OH, FL, NM, IA, NV, and maybe even PA.

7. There are numerous signs we might avoid a significant economic downturn. (I know you're thinking gas prices, but just wait until you see what Exxon and Chevron do to gas prices this fall. You think they want eight years of windfall profit taxes?)

by KenTX on 05/01/2008 05:38:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Point by point (none / 0)

1. True but not going to happen so irrelevant.

2. Hillary stealing the nomination would hurt her I suspect.  Powell cannot be McCain's running mate.  Watch Bush's War and listen to what he says on camera.  He is extremely critical of everything McCain stands for foriegn policy-wise.  He came Austin at least on a speaking tour to explain what was wrong with staying in Iraq.  This would be easy fodder if Powell would even agree to get abused by these people again.  A pipe dream.  Not to mention that whole remember when Colin showed up on our TV and lied to us all and caused the Iraq war thing.  Might come up if he ran.

3. Maybe.  I doubt it.  You are acting like a first time election follower.  None of the candidates are willing to be VP, the other guy in my party is unfit to be president and the hardcore supporters will jump ship instead of voting for the other guy.

Then the primary ends and that was all just jokes.  My God, Ken, this JUST HAPPENED in February after McCain won!!!!!  WAKE UP!!

4. Dealt with Powell. No one gives a shit about Whitman.  Bayh won't help.

5. I think there are very good reasons to pick Richardson.  There are other good options.

6. This is fantasy based on nothing.  Florida is probably red.  Ohio is likely.  And I like the "barring an economic downturn".  Damn, Ken, what is an economic downturn to you?  Pick up a paper, for chrissakes!!!! 

7. Dropping gas prices beginning when?  May?  June? July?  isn't going to turn anything around.  Nice fantasy though. 

 

by ProfRich on 05/01/2008 06:02:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
always a pleasure doing business (none / 0)
“Dropping gas prices beginning when?  May?  June?”
It happens every election year, just like clockwork, because Big Oil executives don’t like Democrats. They don’t enjoy having to testify in front of Democrat run committees.
oil execs

“No one gives a shit about Whitman.” 
Women do. They are sick and tired of riding in the back of the bus since 1789. You’re about to learn this the hard way after Obama is nominated.

“Powell cannot be McCain's running mate.”
I sense fear in your denial. Don’t worry, we won’t run Powell if Obama is nominated, and like you said, it’s already a done deal.  But just remember that the GOP will show some respect to the identity group (blacks or women) who feel insulted after the Denver convention. We're compassionate conservatives.

“Florida is probably red.  Ohio is likely.”
Thanks Rich! You’re very generous. Now look at that electoral map again, and imagine that Richardson is not selected as VP. How do you get to 270? It’s a practical concern ya know? 

“Damn, Ken, what is an economic downturn to you?”
High unemployment and negative GDP. We may not get your recession. I’m sorry.

by KenTX on 05/01/2008 06:44:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My take (none / 0)

I found it odd that  the Obama campaign  considered NC a "traditional battleground"  state in  a recent conference call rather than classifying it as a  "new state", i.e. those Obama puts this year in play.

Clinton would basically refight the 2004 campaign, essentially relying on Kerry States plus Ohio at win.

Obama broadens the playing field to an extent we haven't seen in years. He's strong in the West and in parts of the South. Even states like Montana, North Dakota, and - if you look at the matchups against McCain - Texas (!!!) are in play. 

Anyway, the anticipated increased youth and African-American turnout is a major factor in redrawing the whole electoral map.

 

by charlesf on 04/25/2008 09:59:38 PM EST

I agree charlesf (none / 0)
Obama is a whole new ball game already.

by Chinese Democracy on 04/26/2008 01:58:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good news on the North Carolina front | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: