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.
There have been several threads bashing the states that went for McCain.
I've read many posts asking how people could continue thinking that McCain was the best choice for the country. People have pointed the finger at racism and lack of education as reasons.
Well, how about this for a reason? People in red states persisted in their negative opinion about Obama because it wasn't being refuted. Did the newspapers in Oklahoma endorse Obama? How about the television news stations? How many Obama ads were on television in Oklahoma or Wyoming? How many offices did Obama open in those states? How many ads did Obama place in their newspapers, how many flyers and other campaign literature got mailed to homes in the red states? How many calls did people get asking them to vote?
In the county I live, there wasn't a single Obama campaign office. The Democratic Party office had signs and stickers available for Obama and for some of the what, six other Democrats people could vote for. As a registered Independent, you would think that I would get at least one pamphlet in the mail about Obama's candidacy. But no, nothing. Maybe that ad in the paper, oops, no ads placed in the local newspapers...
People talk about how can people think Fox News is a valid news source. Well, it is a valid news source. O'Reilly or Hannity aren't newsmen, they are entertainers. Their shows are entertainment, just like The Daily News Show with Jon Stewart is entertainment. Entertainment that spins the current political news. Shep reports the news just like Katie. Why does Fox News have credibility in conservative areas? Because their newspapers, their local news stations, their mayors and local officials are right-leaning, too. If your local CBS affiliate out of Joplin, MO gives a conservative slant to the news, then their stories are going to match up better with Fox than with MSNBC. And if your local newspaper endorses McCain, it's going to match up better with Fox, too. So your local newspaper, your local news station, both agree with Fox. If CNN says it ain't so, why does your local newspaper, local TV and Fox all say it is so? And if these are local news sources, you're probably gonna stick with the conservative internet sources as well.
Obama's campaign was marvelous. Well-organized, well-funded, it decided on its strategy and carried it through. It didn't invest in places it didn't think it could win, or even if they could win that wouldn't add to the math. So those places didn't get the advantage of all the information people in battleground states or blue states had. They got all the McCain information. They got to hear about Obama's questionable associations, about Obama's lack of experience, about Obama's flaws. And they voted accordingly. They voted for what they thought was the best candidate according to the information they were given. Isn't that what everyone does?
Obama's campaign was marvelous. Well-organized, well-funded, it decided on its strategy and carried it through. It didn't invest in places it didn't think it could win, or even if they could win that wouldn't add to the math. So those places didn't get the advantage of all the information people in battleground states or blue states had. They got all the McCain information. They got to hear about Obama's questionable associations, about Obama's lack of experience, about Obama's flaws. And they voted accordingly. They voted for what they thought was the best candidate according to the information they were given. Isn't that what everyone does?[/quote]
Is this really the case? I thought that the solid states for either party were avoided by both candidates, as there was no need to worry about any of these states flipping to the other side.
During one of the campaign strategy meetings one of the aides brought up a possible strategy for Oklahoma. He said "Okay, what about Oklahoma?". Everyone in the room paused and looked around ..... then they all just broke out laughing histerically!!! The aide said "Eff it!!! Okla-effin-homa? Im mean really? All they have is Carrie Underwood and even she left".
Obama's campaign was marvelous. Well-organized, well-funded, it decided on its strategy and carried it through. It didn't invest in places it didn't think it could win, or even if they could win that wouldn't add to the math. So those places didn't get the advantage of all the information people in battleground states or blue states had. They got all the McCain information. They got to hear about Obama's questionable associations, about Obama's lack of experience, about Obama's flaws. And they voted accordingly. They voted for what they thought was the best candidate according to the information they were given. Isn't that what everyone does?
Is this really the case? I thought that the solid states for either party were avoided by both candidates, as there was no need to worry about any of these states flipping to the other side.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you are asking. Both campaigns were budgeting money to use it where it would reap the most benefit. My point is that when you are criticizing red states for voting red, accusing them of being racist of stupid, it really isn't valid. If no one even tried to persuade them to vote Democrat, why would they?
I'm not sure what you are asking. Both campaigns were budgeting money to use it where it would reap the most benefit. My point is that when you are criticizing red states for voting red, accusing them of being racist of stupid, it really isn't valid. If no one even tried to persuade them to vote Democrat, why would they?
The point is no one persuaded them to vote republican either, as both candidates avoided these solid color states, and yet they still trended more republican than the previous elections. Since they received almost no information about either candidate yet still trended republican, is it safe to say there might have been ignorant reasons for it? (name/skin color being the main two)
The point is no one persuaded them to vote republican either, as both candidates avoided these solid color states, and yet they still trended more republican than the previous elections. Since they received almost no information about either candidate yet still trended republican, is it safe to say there might have been ignorant reasons for it? (name/skin color being the main two)
If your newspapers and media and current and running elected officials all lean conservative, you think they aren't persuaded to vote Republican? If the Republican machinery is mailing out McCain literature, and McCain ads are running on TV as part of the RNC push, you don't think that's persuasive?
So, no, it is not safe to say that people in red states are more ignorant than people in blue states.
Since they received almost no information about either candidate yet still trended republican, is it safe to say there might have been ignorant reasons for it? (name/skin color being the main two)
Why are name/skin color the main two? What about political ideology? I loathe this "red state = racist" assumption. My state, Kentucky, went for McCain, but that's in line with the state's history. Kentucky tends to be Democratic at a local and state level and Republican at a national level. Why does that equate with ignorance?
There was a campaign office for Obama in Oklahoma City. When I went to vote everyone in line around me was voting for Obama--it took hours to vote, with record number of dem turnout.. yet still somehow.. we ended up being the reddest state on the map and for the first time in History of Oklahoma, the Republicans took control of the state senate. I * really* feel something went wrong with this election, if not a fixed deal. I didnt expect Obama to take Okla, but the numbers should have been higher, and on the local level, the repubs mopped up almost every seat they wanted--which is not normal. I mean Inhofe, Sally Kern? No that should not have happened, they are hated here now.
I have to agree with the OP. I also live in a very red state and saw almost no Obama ads. In view of the fact that Obama had opted out of public financing (after first agreeing to it), he had more than enough money to spend on advertising. My only conclusion would be that he didn't care about the votes of my state and personally I don't think that bodes well for an end to divisiveness.
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.
