Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nonsense, O won NC last time, he came within 5 points in Georgia (47 to 52)the last time. He had some good polling in SC this year but has not been campaigning there.
If Obama can get 45% of the vote in states like Texas and South Carolina, and 47% in Georgia with no campaigning, no serious ground game, no serious statewide surrogates then can you imagine what he would get if he actually put in effort in those places or had someone to do it for him.
Heck all you need to win is 48% and a mildly decent 3rd party candidate. That means he is in the ball park already for Georgia and with a little effort in Texas and SC he could be there too.
What you going to say now? North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Texas are thrown out like Virginia and Florida?
So why doesn't he even try? Why do people up outside the South sneer when they hear Texas when actually 45% vote Democrat?
So why doesn't he even try? Why do people up outside the South sneer when they hear Texas when actually 45% vote Democrat?
I think that at least a part of it comes from the fact that Texas produced two laughingstock larger than life governors, one of whom became president. Also, the sheer number of electoral votes that Texas produces singles us out for more notoriety. If we were a small state like Miss or Ala, they wouldn't have that kind of animus towards Texas.
After all, that's why the TX voter ID bill rejects a student ID from the University of Texas (and all over colleges run by the State of Texas) as a valid form of ID for voting -- they know they college/university demographic votes disproportionately Democratic.
There is no other reason for such an aspect to the law.
A student ID is not a proof of citizenship, we all know that Democrats are counting on illegals to vote, as well as dead people and fictional people.
A student ID is not a proof of citizenship, we all know that Democrats are counting on illegals to vote, as well as dead people and fictional people.
You're like a zombie. Just spouting these tired, debunked lies.....LOL
If you had evidence of any significant voter fraud you would have posted it.
What mental gymnastics must you go thru in your head to support a racist policy that would exclude thousands of Hispanics from voting, when you yourself are Hispanic?
You're like a zombie. Just spouting these tired, debunked lies.....LOL
If you had evidence of any significant voter fraud you would have posted it.
What mental gymnastics must you go thru in your head to support a racist policy that would exclude thousands of Hispanics from voting, when you yourself are Hispanic?
Amazing.
Lol yes I am Hispanic, I am also American. Apparently, only one of us here understands the value of our elections and want to protect the integrity of our elections, while you're side want to undermine it.
So why doesn't he even try? Why do people up outside the South sneer when they hear Texas when actually 45% vote Democrat?
Do you think people view others the way they do because of the way they vote? LOL... As recently as 24 years ago, California and New York were Republican states in presidential elections. Texas was as well. Even then, people elsewhere had the same negative opinions of Texans as they do now.
BTW, living in Dallas, Texas, I'm sure you encounter a lot of Republican and Democratic voters both almost every day. Do you view people based on how you think they vote?
Moreover, 45% of Texans do not vote Democrat. About 37% or so of Texans do. About 55% of Texans vote Republican. The rest are swing voters. There are swing voters in every state in the country. There are less swing voters now than there were a few decades ago, but there are still swing voters I think it's a sad state of affairs that we are so polarized that such a large number of people vote for the same party every election without thinking about it but, hey, that's the way it is nowadays...regardless, there are still swing voters. In 2008 the swing voters in Texas, just as those everywhere else in the country, went for Obama. (BTW - Obama got 44% of the vote in TX in 2008, not 45%.)
This year, Obama will get probably get somewhere between 40% and 42% of the vote in Texas depending on how he does nationally. Swing voters in one state are not that different from swing voters in another state.
Why wouldn't a Democrat try to win Texas right now? It's simple. If they had any chance at all of winning Texas, it would mean they had already won nationally by a large margin. In 2008 Texas was 18 points more Republican than the nation as a whole. Texas would just be gravy and it would always be very losable for a Democrat.
In 2004, Kerry won CA by just 9 - less than the 11 McCain won TX by in 2008. Despite poll numbers, Bush didn't campaign there. Despite Kerry winning by just 9, McCain didn't campaign there in 2008 and Romney is not campaigning there this year.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 09-24-2012 at 10:01 PM..
nonsense, O won NC last time, he came within 5 points in Georgia (47 to 52)the last time. He had some good polling in SC this year but has not been campaigning there.
If Obama can get 45% of the vote in states like Texas and South Carolina, and 47% in Georgia with no campaigning, no serious ground game, no serious statewide surrogates then can you imagine what he would get if he actually put in effort in those places or had someone to do it for him.
Ummm...campaigning only really helps at the margins. He did as well as he did in 2008 in TX/SC/GA/NC because of people being sick of wars, a bad economy, a financial crisis, and the Republican vice presidential candidate being horribly incompetent. Campaigning might have put him over the top in NC but, even without campaigning there, he would have probably come within 1-2 points of winning. He will not do as well in any of those states this year. There is little chance he will win NC.
There was one poll for this election where he was ahead in SC, but he was still only in the mid 40's, it was a poll put out by a pollster that usually oversamples Democrats, and it was even before the primary season started. Even PPP - a Democratic pollster - put out a poll showing Romney up 15 in SC:
This poll was also before the primary season started. There really haven't been any SC polls that I'm aware of conducted in 2012. That should tell you - no one expects it to be competitive.
Even liberal Obama supporter Nate Silver predicts Romney will win SC by double digits:
Heck all you need to win is 48% and a mildly decent 3rd party candidate. That means he is in the ball park already for Georgia and with a little effort in Texas and SC he could be there too.
Only in a very, very Democratic year. As I've said repeatedly, you have to compare how a state votes compared to the nation. When you do that, states like GA, TX, SC, etc. seem very Republican even when looking at the 2008 election results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
What you going to say now? North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Texas are thrown out like Virginia and Florida?
Are you suggesting that NC, SC, GA, and TX are going to be gone for the Republicans anytime soon??!?!?! Hahahaha. Are you suggesting VA and FL are now? They are battleground states this year and Romney could win one or both even if he loses the election. They were both more Republican than the nation in 2008. VA is trending Democrat, as is NC, but FL is not.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 09-24-2012 at 09:49 PM..
Agree 100%, Tx will be a blue state by 2020, and that will be the end of any hope for the gop.....
I think the GOP would be smart enough and be playing another tune by then. Parties reinvent themselves when they come close to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asubram3
So why doesn't he even try? Why do people up outside the South sneer when they hear Texas when actually 45% vote Democrat?
He doesn't try because he has easier paths to victory. It is easier to flip Ohio an Florida and win the election than to flip massive Texas.
Texas is also a very expensive state to compete in. Most states have one media market so a campaign only has to pay to run adds once. Flipping Texas is like trying to flip ten states. Texas has huge an expensive media markets in Houston, Dallas, SA, Austin, El Paso, The Valley, Beaumont, Lubbock, etc so instead of paying ten times to run an add, it is simply easier to flood Iowa, of Nevada with adds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Ummm...campaigning only really helps at the margins.
not all the time. Indiana was not a marginal state. Obama campaigned there an turned a state that went for bush by 25% to a state that went blue. That was a more than 25% flip. campaigning an do wonders if you target the right audience.
Quote:
He did as well as he did in 2008 in TX/SC/GA/NC because of people being sick of wars, a bad economy, a financial crisis, and the Republican vice presidential candidate being horribly incompetent.
So what? We are not talking about this year, or last election. We are talking about possibilities. So you are saying that 2008 is the only time that the GOP candidate will ever pick a bad running mate? LOL look at this year. I am not saying that the dems won't pick horrible people too, but on't act like we can't have a repeat of 2008 conditions
Quote:
Campaigning might have put him over the top in NC but, even without campaigning there, he would have probably come within 1-2 points of winning. He will not do as well in any of those states this year. There is little chance he will win NC.
Oh Pardon me miss Cleo. Didn't know you were using a crystal ball. My points are useless then since I can't be certain what would or could happen like you are.
Quote:
There was one poll for this election where he was ahead in SC, but he was still only in the mid 40's, it was a poll put out by a pollster that usually oversamples Democrats, and it was even before the primary season started. Even PPP - a Democratic pollster - put out a poll showing Romney up 15 in SC:
Mi 40's is sticking distance for any candidate. If you tell me I am running mid 40's in a state that has been overly republican in the past I would throw a party
Quote:
This poll was also before the primary season started. There really haven't been any SC polls that I'm aware of conducted in 2012. That should tell you - no one expects it to be competitive.
So? That does not mean anything. Obama has not set foot in SC. He has no ground game there. He is being out funded by the GOP, and on top of that he has a much clearer path to victory sans SC. so why would he even try?
Quote:
Even liberal Obama supporter Nate Silver predicts Romney will win SC by double digits:
Nate has nothing to go on this year. Many states in his forecast are going to be off.
I will tell you this though, if Obama had the $$$ to run in SC Romney would be sh!tting even more bricks.
SC would be polling somewhere between the most recent polls of North Carolina and Georgia
He is up by 4 in NC an down by 8 in Georgia which is a 12 point spread, which indicates the race in SC is about Romney 52, Obama 47 right now.
Quote:
Only in a very, very Democratic year. As I've said repeatedly, you have to compare how a state votes compared to the nation. When you do that, states like GA, TX, SC, etc. seem very Republican even when looking at the 2008 election results.
BS if you were using that to decide the states in the 2008 election you would have been so screwed.
Indiana, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina was leaning more to the right than Missouri or Florida, and yet Obama did better in those than in Missouri
Before 2008 states like West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee were more favorable to the dems than Texas, and yet Obama won a higher percentage of votes in Texas than in every one of those states
Quote:
Are you suggesting that NC, SC, GA, and TX are going to be gone for the Republicans anytime soon??!?!?! Hahahaha. Are you suggesting VA and FL are now? They are battleground states this year and Romney could win one or both even if he loses the election. They were both more Republican than the nation in 2008. VA is trending Democrat, as is NC, but FL is not.
you sound silly laughing at something I din't say. I said there is a possibility for democratic gains in all these states. if you are too daft to see that then you are the one people should be laughing at.
The more republican than the nation theory is one of the biggest flaws in Silvers brilliance. There is not a perfect consensus throughout each state on the level of party victory in relation to the nation.
Indiana went for Bush by 25% while winning the popular vote by what 4% ( a 20% republican lean)the very next election Obama won Indiana by 1% while winning the election by 7% (a 6% republican lean). That is a swing of 14% in one cycle.
It is stupid to rely solely on which state was more republican or democrat in a previous cycle because major shifts often occur and it is NOT uniform nationally. Obama can lose a reliably democratic state like Minnesota while at the same time win a reliably republican state like Indiana the same year.
Look at MOntana. It went 20 points to the left
Indiana went 25%
ND, SD, MS, et all went sharply to the left while AR, WV, LA etc went sharply to the right.
I will sum up Texas again.
It gave Obama about 45% (3% away from a victory when 3rd party candidates are considered)
It is the only plurality hispanic/ white minority state that still votes republican
It has had a flood of transplants from more liberal California
It has a burgeoning Tech industry which leans more democrat
Its is pushing for more Tier one campuses which translate into more liberal havens
I think Texas is already trending purple an has an excellent shot at going blue soon. If this was the 1996 Election but insert Romney as the GOP candidate instead of Dole and you would see that Clinton would have flipped the state. Dole was more reliably conservative than Romney an he only got 48 percent of the vote. Texas was one of 11 States that year with a margin of victory less than 5%. So Technically Texas was already purple that year. with a weaker candidate like Romney plus a spoiler like Perot thrown in the Mix, it is fairly certain that Texas would have flipped.
The same an happen in the near future. Heck let Ron Paul run this year an see what happens.
Put Hillary next election against Romney an see if she doesn't get damn near 400 E votes including Texas.
OP, will Texas be a swing state soon? It already is one in disguise. The future of Texas Politics lies in the Houston and DFW burbs where the demographic there is only lean republican
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Swing State?? Not A Chance
