|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 10:30:09 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Gass3268, Virginiá)
  beasley vs. demint, sc runoff
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: beasley vs. demint, sc runoff  (Read 9667 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2004, 11:04:46 am »

I dont' think Beasley is going to win the nomination. Condon and Ravenel both made public endorsements for DeMint so I'm guessing that most of their supporters with vote for him.

In NC, I'm glad to see that the GOP is united for Burr. All these people saying that Bowles will hold the seat for the Dems is wishful thinking on their part. NC is going GOP.

As for the NC Governor's race, there are 6 Republicans running.  It seems like Ballantine is the most conservative and has the best shot at winning. Unfortunatley, though, for us Republicans, I think the Dems hold this seat.

WalterMitty, why are you going to vote for Easley?

IMO Bowles is a slight favourite over Burr (and no, this isn't wishful thinking) Had Burr been involved in a nasty primary fight, Bowles would walk it.
And Easley will be re-elected Easley (Groans...)
Logged
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,953
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2004, 11:10:55 am »

And how is Virginia getting more Republican? What areas? Fairfax? Newport News? *laughs*
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: June 19, 2004, 11:13:42 am »

I agree with all the GOP pickups you have listed there but I'm not so sure about Lousiana. Three Democrats running will split that vote up nicely (mainly between Kennedy and John) but I don't know if Vitter (R) will get enough to prevent the run-off.  I also agree with you about Tenenbaum.

Most of this is just wishful thinking on the part of the Dems. They know we have some great chances at pickups down south and have a hard time admitting it. I remember hearing someone say that the Dems still have a chance in Georgia. How can someone keep a straight face saying that?

There is no way that Vitter will get even close to winning 50% +1 in the first round. In fact I'd be willing to bet real money on it Wink
LA is first and foremost a Democrat state. Sure it doesn't always vote that way, and it's Democrats run the whole gamut from Dixiecrat conservatives to near-Socialist Longesque populists, but you should never, ever forget it.
---
Re: Wishful thinking, whether you wanna admit this or not (I guess not) "Neo-Populism" is rising in rural areas of the South... I dunno whether or not it will be enough to help the Dems hold NC, SC and LA (oh and GA. Technically hold at least) as it's very much a new thing... and is one of the most interesting political trends in the U.S at the moment (who'd have seen it coming 10 years ago?) and I'm still trying to work out when and where it started.

As far as GA goes, the Dems *do* have a strong candidate, and although I personally don't see her winning, the GOP ain't waltzing it *at all*...
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,588


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2004, 11:21:12 am »

yes al, there was a nasty fight over richard morgan a few eeks ago.  that fight was started by a bunch of right wingers.  they are mad about morgan entering into a power sharing agreenment in the state house with jim black.

the republicans in raleigh are completely inept, and so are the democrats , for that matter.  every freakin year, the republicans (who believe in the right of the individual, mind you) block a public referendum on the lottery.  it's really quite sad that they are so backwards/

anyway, richard morgan is involved in a *nasty* primary fight in moore county.  he will be lucky to survive.  im rooting for him, though.

keystone phil:  i disagree that ballantine has the best shot at winning the primary.   id say that richard vinroot is the clear frontrunner, if only because of his name recognition (from two previous lackluster runs for governor).  i would in no way vote for vinroot.  he is a phoney.

id consider voting for ballantine over easley in the general.  ballantine is young, and probably not quite as backwards as his amigos in raleigh.

remember, the gop primary will certainly go to a run off.  right now it looks like vinroot vs. ballantine in the runoff.  but watch out for bill cobey.  
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2004, 11:31:13 am »

yes al, there was a nasty fight over richard morgan a few eeks ago.  that fight was started by a bunch of right wingers.  they are mad about morgan entering into a power sharing agreenment in the state house with jim black.

the republicans in raleigh are completely inept, and so are the democrats , for that matter.  every freakin year, the republicans (who believe in the right of the individual, mind you) block a public referendum on the lottery.  it's really quite sad that they are so backwards/

anyway, richard morgan is involved in a *nasty* primary fight in moore county.  he will be lucky to survive.  im rooting for him, though.

My memory works! Cheesy
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,651


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: June 19, 2004, 11:39:34 am »

I thought it was pretty much a Vinroot/Ballantine race. But since Vinroot ran twice before and lost (though 2000 was pretty close) I thought maybe the frontrunner be someone new.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,588


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: June 19, 2004, 12:36:17 pm »

vinroot *should* have won in 2000.  for a couple of reasons:

1.  he had good name recognition from his 96 run
2.  easley is a terrible campaigner and took several weeks off during the summer.  he also rarely campaigned in person.
3.  easley wasnt a terribly popular politician, even among dems.  many partisan dems have never forgiven him for prosecuting some democratic officials when he was  DA in brunswick county.
4.  bush won big in nc in 2000, yet vinroot failed to capitalize on that.

vinroot performed HORRIBLY in eastern nc, as most republicans do in statewide elections.  perhaps ballantine, being an easterner himself, will be able to do a little better down east.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,651


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: June 19, 2004, 10:51:41 pm »

But do you see NC giving the Governorship to a Republican?
Logged
classical liberal
RightWingNut
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,758


Political Matrix
E: 9.35, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: June 19, 2004, 11:11:51 pm »

Democrats will lose in NC, SC, GA, FL, and probably LA. They can only hope to pull upsets out west to prevent a complete rout.

I'd bet real money that you're wrong.  LA is lean Dem.  The Dems will probably win, not loose.  GA and SC are going to switch, but so are CO and IL so the senate won't change from that.  NC and FL are up in the air, as are AK and OK.  There is a good chance that the senate stays 51-49.  There is also a good chance that the Dems win OK and AK while holding NC and FL.  Likewise there is an equal chance that the GOP wins NC and FL while holding OK and AK.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2004, 01:14:57 am »
« Edited: June 20, 2004, 01:22:18 am by AuH2O »

Are you serious?

Competitive states by likely Presidential winner:

Bush

North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Louisiana
Florida
South Dakota
Colorado
Alaska
Oklahoma

Kerry

Illinois

Right off the bat, something becomes apparent: all except one major battle is being fought in Bush territory. So, all else being equal, Republicans would win every single one. Of course, all things are not equal- some candidates are stronger than others, or could turn out to be stronger.

However, most laypeople overestimate the degree to which voters split their ballots. Turnout is highest in Presidential years, and the 'extra' voters are the least likely of all to split. About 2/3 of the electorate votes for a more or less straight ticket- 1/3 for each party. But of course the parties are not of equal strength.

Thus, in, say, North Carolina, Bush should win by 11-16%, depending on his overall performance (I would say 14% is a good figure). In any case, that means well over 10% of Bush voters will have to vote Bowles PLUS the number of Kerry voters that vote Burr (a reasonably small number, but significant if you consider his local strength). So perhaps 15% of Bush's supporters have to go Bowles. Not going to happen. I think Burr is actually a better candidate than Bowles, but he could be inferior by a marginal degree and still win.

Louisiana is always difficult to predict, as it depends on the winner amongst the Democrats. A Northern Democrat last won Louisiana in 1960-- because Kennedy was Catholic. Kerry is, but is secular and disliked by religious voters. Bush will win by 4-10%, perhaps a bit higher if he routs Kerry nationally. John and Vitter are roughly equal candidates- Vitter is a bit better on his own but John is endorsed by Breaux- so this leans GOP. It is not by any means a sure thing. In a non-Presidential year, it would lean DNC.

Colorado is the race everyone thinks Democrats are going to win- for some reason- but will in fact lose, and perhaps handily. 'Celebrity' type candidates always beat expectations, and Coors is surprisingly adept politically. He is well funded in a state Bush will win by 6-12%, and his name recognition is obviously very good. And, let's face it, someone with 'Salazar' as a last name loses 1-2% off the top. Just ask 'Governor' Jindal about it. The Dems did well to get Salazar in the running (he's the only Democrat with any chance at all), but only a fool would give him the race at this point.

Most of the races are the same pattern... strong Dem candidates in Bush country. History is not on their side. EVEN IF BUSH LOSES THE NATIONAL ELECTION he will win those states, or most of them. In 2000, for instance, Slade Gorton lost because GORE helped his opponent in Washington (Gore won by 6%)... Cantwell won by 2,000 total votes. Stabenow also has Gore to thank: he won Michigan by 5%; she won by 1%.

And even when the results do not follow as such, the effect is still clear. In the 2000 Pennslyvania Senate race, Santorum beat Klink 53-45. In a non-Presidential year, he most likely would have won 58-40, perhaps by even more, but Klink was helped by Gore's win and the limited split-ticket voting for people that primarily vote in Presidential elections.

Trust me, the Democrats are not in good shape- whatever your liberal friends tell you. Much better shape than anticipated, but bleak nonetheless. GOP gains 2-3 seats, 4 if Bush wins big.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: June 20, 2004, 05:34:16 am »

AuH2O... are you stoned or something?
Your logic is so woolly I'm not going to bother wasting time on it...
I'll tell you this though: there is no way that Bush will win NC by 14 points.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: June 20, 2004, 08:53:05 am »

Look, arrogant prick- you haven't proven ANYTHING. You make predictions, without reasons, and without historical precedent, while I make predictions based on such things. We'll see who is right.

I actually put money on stuff like this- and win a lot of money on stuff like this. I don't care if you like reality or not... you can stay in your dream world for all I care. But, if you don't have something even remotely constructive to say, don't say it.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: June 20, 2004, 10:33:29 am »

Look, arrogant prick- you haven't proven ANYTHING. You make predictions, without reasons, and without historical precedent, while I make predictions based on such things. We'll see who is right.

I actually put money on stuff like this- and win a lot of money on stuff like this. I don't care if you like reality or not... you can stay in your dream world for all I care. But, if you don't have something even remotely constructive to say, don't say it.

In the past two years something happend to the economy of the Carolina's which has destabalised politics in them.
You *ought* to know what it is...
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: June 20, 2004, 11:49:14 am »
« Edited: June 20, 2004, 11:50:43 am by AuH2O »

And, if you were 1/10th as smart as you think you are, you would understand the complexities of voting behavior. Job losses from reductions in certain types of manufacturing (mostly to machines, by the way, very few jobs are truly 'exported') are a relatively minor issue.

Greenville, SC, for instance, benefits tremendously from free trade. BMW North America is HQed in Spartanburg (next door) and Michelin NA is HQed in Greenville. There are literally hundreds of foreign corporations employing thousands of people. Raleigh, Charlotte, and Greensboro likewise benefit.

So, please endeavor to know something about the issues you claim mastery of. You better be around after the election to eat your crow. That's all I ask.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: June 20, 2004, 12:01:47 pm »

And, if you were 1/10th as smart as you think you are, you would understand the complexities of voting behavior. Job losses from reductions in certain types of manufacturing (mostly to machines, by the way, very few jobs are truly 'exported') are a relatively minor issue.

Greenville, SC, for instance, benefits tremendously from free trade. BMW North America is HQed in Spartanburg (next door) and Michelin NA is HQed in Greenville. There are literally hundreds of foreign corporations employing thousands of people. Raleigh, Charlotte, and Greensboro likewise benefit.

So, please endeavor to know something about the issues you claim mastery of. You better be around after the election to eat your crow. That's all I ask.

Not how the poor bastards who lost their jobs see it though is it? There had been a growing (but low key) resentment in rural areas of the whole sunbelt thing *anyway*... but the collapse of the textile industry appears to have been the last straw for many people (rightly or wrongly that isn't the point).
---
Job losses are *never* a minor issue.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: June 20, 2004, 12:08:53 pm »

Do you know the people that have lost their jobs? Have you talked to them? Do you live in the areas impacted by this?

Most Southerners- whites at least- simply will not vote for a Democrat. They could stay home, but social issues make a cross-over impossible. This article actually does a decent job explaining it, from a balanced perspective:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0618nj1.htm

Job losses have been exaggerated, anyway, and like I said- certain jobs are becoming obsolete. There's nothing a Democrat can do to make sewing jeans a profitable activity in North Carolina. Period.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: June 20, 2004, 12:17:43 pm »

"Most Southerners- whites at least"

Wow. And here's me thinking that Blacks were people and voters too.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: June 20, 2004, 12:18:57 pm »

Are you saying most Southerners are non-white?

Maybe you're even stupider than I thought.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,016
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: June 20, 2004, 12:25:18 pm »

Are you saying most Southerners are non-white?

Maybe you're even stupider than I thought.

I am well aware that a majority of people in every state south of the Mason-Dixon line and East of the Sabine are white. I have spent a lot of time looking into Racial and Sectional patterns in said area.
I happen to find this statement disturbing:

"Most Southerners- whites at least"
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: June 20, 2004, 12:35:23 pm »
« Edited: June 20, 2004, 12:35:54 pm by AuH2O »

Most= "majority."

Let me rephrase for your politically correct needs, Mr. Thought Policeman

"A plurality of Southerners, primarily whites, will not consider voting for a Democrat."

Dude, you seriously need a life.
Logged
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,953
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: June 20, 2004, 12:46:09 pm »

Are you serious?

Competitive states by likely Presidential winner:

Bush

North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Louisiana
Florida
South Dakota
Colorado
Alaska
Oklahoma

Kerry

Illinois

Right off the bat, something becomes apparent: all except one major battle is being fought in Bush territory. So, all else being equal, Republicans would win every single one. Of course, all things are not equal- some candidates are stronger than others, or could turn out to be stronger.

However, most laypeople overestimate the degree to which voters split their ballots. Turnout is highest in Presidential years, and the 'extra' voters are the least likely of all to split. About 2/3 of the electorate votes for a more or less straight ticket- 1/3 for each party. But of course the parties are not of equal strength.

Thus, in, say, North Carolina, Bush should win by 11-16%, depending on his overall performance (I would say 14% is a good figure). In any case, that means well over 10% of Bush voters will have to vote Bowles PLUS the number of Kerry voters that vote Burr (a reasonably small number, but significant if you consider his local strength). So perhaps 15% of Bush's supporters have to go Bowles. Not going to happen. I think Burr is actually a better candidate than Bowles, but he could be inferior by a marginal degree and still win.

Louisiana is always difficult to predict, as it depends on the winner amongst the Democrats. A Northern Democrat last won Louisiana in 1960-- because Kennedy was Catholic. Kerry is, but is secular and disliked by religious voters. Bush will win by 4-10%, perhaps a bit higher if he routs Kerry nationally. John and Vitter are roughly equal candidates- Vitter is a bit better on his own but John is endorsed by Breaux- so this leans GOP. It is not by any means a sure thing. In a non-Presidential year, it would lean DNC.

Colorado is the race everyone thinks Democrats are going to win- for some reason- but will in fact lose, and perhaps handily. 'Celebrity' type candidates always beat expectations, and Coors is surprisingly adept politically. He is well funded in a state Bush will win by 6-12%, and his name recognition is obviously very good. And, let's face it, someone with 'Salazar' as a last name loses 1-2% off the top. Just ask 'Governor' Jindal about it. The Dems did well to get Salazar in the running (he's the only Democrat with any chance at all), but only a fool would give him the race at this point.

Most of the races are the same pattern... strong Dem candidates in Bush country. History is not on their side. EVEN IF BUSH LOSES THE NATIONAL ELECTION he will win those states, or most of them. In 2000, for instance, Slade Gorton lost because GORE helped his opponent in Washington (Gore won by 6%)... Cantwell won by 2,000 total votes. Stabenow also has Gore to thank: he won Michigan by 5%; she won by 1%.

And even when the results do not follow as such, the effect is still clear. In the 2000 Pennslyvania Senate race, Santorum beat Klink 53-45. In a non-Presidential year, he most likely would have won 58-40, perhaps by even more, but Klink was helped by Gore's win and the limited split-ticket voting for people that primarily vote in Presidential elections.

Trust me, the Democrats are not in good shape- whatever your liberal friends tell you. Much better shape than anticipated, but bleak nonetheless. GOP gains 2-3 seats, 4 if Bush wins big.

states in 2000 that had a different Senate race outcome than the presidential race:

North Dakota
Florida (disputable, but you would think so)
Georgia
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Maine
West Virginia

and compare the margin of victories between the Senate and Presidential candidates in states like New Jersey and New Mexico, and it becomes obvious that a lot more split ticketing than you claim going on.

now to knock off some of your other points:

there is NO way the LA race leans GOP. You won't find a single serious analysist who says so. Even though Bush will probably win Louisiana easily, John is far more conservative than Kerry, so he could easily pick up much of the Bush vote, especially since Democrats have a commanding registration advantage in LA. Now lots are too conservative to vote for Kerry yes, but they'll vote for John. And Breaux is far more popular than Bush in LA, so his endorsement will mean more weight. And of course, there's the whole run off deal meaning this would likely be decided  not on election day. Only 2 years ago, LA reelected the far more liberal Landrieu. And finally, LA hasn't elected a Republican Senator since the Civil War. This race is a toss up only under absolutely best possible conditions for you.

Bush will not win by 14 points in NC. I'd put 10 as the best/worst case scenario. All the recent polls showing it being a lot closer than expected.

Colorado is the state where Republicans like to ignore all the polls giving Salazar a clear lead. And his last name obviously didn't stop him from getting 57% in his last election. Besides, the people who would refuse to vote for someone for that reason aren't the type who would vote for a Democrat anyway, the problem with the Jindal analogy.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: June 20, 2004, 12:58:45 pm »
« Edited: June 20, 2004, 01:06:32 pm by AuH2O »

Your list doesn't work: long-standing imcumbents without serious opposition are irrelevant. I'm discussing seriously contested races.

Another mistake is to rely on polls this far out. If you use those as your guideline, your conclusions will be highly skewed. Instead, look to the 2000 & 1988 elections, and maybe add Perot's voters to the GOP column for 1992 and 1996. You might be surprised at how little the results vary.

Split-ticketing only occurs en masse when there is no serious opposition. Instead of just looking at percentages, also check out the vote totals. For instance, you cite West Virginia as an example of split-ticketing in 2000. However, over 54,000 fewer votes were cast for Senator than for President-- almost 10% of the Presidential votes cast. In other words, the election was not seen a serious competition and voters, even GOP voters, did not know enough about the GOP Senate candidate to choose him... and they also knew he had no chance. Landreiu won in 2002, but relatively narrowly (52-48%). She was the incumbent, and thus her showing was actually somewhat weak. In a Presidential year, she would have lost. Now there is an open seat. I don't care if there hasn't been a LA Republican Senator since some Yankee tyrant appointed one... the facts are the facts.

I could go through your examples individually, but I don't think it's necessary. Split-ticketing does occur, but the combination Party win for President/close Senate race gives a huge advantage to the person running under the winning Party banner. Zell Miller is not a counter-example. Stephanie Herseth was leading in the polls by 20% a few weeks before her election, and scraped out a 51-49% win-- because she had already run for the seat before and had better name recognition. And that was a mid-year election. By November, Salazar won't be sitting pretty. You'll see.
Logged
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,953
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: June 20, 2004, 01:13:43 pm »

If you honestly think you every single Perot voter would've voted Republican if Perot wasn't in the race you are so dumb you aren't even worth arguing with. I'm so sure that Bush I would've beaten Clinton, a far weaker candidate than Dukakis by a much wider margin than Dukakis at a time when he was much more unpopular than he was in 1988. Add the Perot vote to Bush I's and Clinton loses every state except Arkansas and narrow pularalities in Maryland and New York. Yep, if it wasn't for Perot Bush would've won Rhode Island.

I don't see how you could say Landrieu would've lost in a presidential year, when THE ELECTION WOULD'VE NOT BEEN HELD THE SAME DAY AS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. No split ticketing would've taken place that day. Landrieu probably would've done a little poorer the election day, but it would've had no effect on the run off.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,214
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: June 20, 2004, 01:37:53 pm »

It amazes me that people think Inez is a good candidate. Do any of you know who she beat to become whatever low-level official she is? A guy with a serious speech impediment. The GOP didn't care enough about the post to run someone stronger... and she still didn't run away with it.

For whatever reason, SC voters still trust Democrats more than Republicans when it comes to education which is why the Superintendent of Education race is the easiest statewide race for a Dem to win in this state.  It would take a weak Dem candidate and a strong GOP candidate to win the post and Inez is not a weak candidate.  The senate seat is still a probable GOP pickup but with a strong Senate race, Bush will not be doing as well in SC as he did in 2000.  Not only that, but Bush may need to spend time and money here to help Beasley/DeMint beat Inez.
Logged
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,953
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: June 20, 2004, 02:36:10 pm »

If she was such a weak candidate, she wouldnt' be leading in most polls so far either.

also, women candidates usually do better for the Democrats down south, probably because they attract female voters more. If she can win a majority of the female vote, that + the black vote will put her over the top.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines