Oh no, uneducated bigoted morons won't be voting for Barack.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

It was argued in 1964 that no Democrat had ever won the White House without the South, and that LBJ was committing political suicide by pushing for the Civil Rights Act. In the 1964 election, he DID lose a lot of the South -- Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina all voted for Goldwater. He still won the election.

The reason that no Democrat has won the White House without WV since 1916 is because it is -- or used to be -- so solidly Democratic that if the Dems lost the state, it meant things were going very, very badly. But I'm wondering if that's really true any more. The state went Republican in 2000 and 2004, and those were very close elections. If WV were still solidly Democratic, it should have gone for Gore and Kerry in those years.

In any case, there's still time for Obama to win it back. The reasons those polled West Virginians say they'll vote for McCain over him are all matters of image, not substance, and they're not even factually accurate. He isn't a Muslim, his wife's not an atheist, and he's a lot closer to being a "man of the people" than either Clinton or McCain. As for his policies, they will definitely benefit West Virginia more than McCain's will. We'll see. I am reasonably confident that West Virginia will go for Obama in the end anyway, but I'm completely certain that he can win the election without it if need be.

It's an interesting thread...

But I'm not sure the part about "six of the last eight elections" holds up alongside the comment about 1916, if you are talking about the White House.

Duakakis won WV in 1988. Correct?

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

No - educated bigoted morons will.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Yeah! Man of the people.

Count on you...

Man of which people?

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Depends on what your definition of "middle-class" is.
The definition depends on geography and rural/urban areas.

Just ask Imperator - he pays more than me (%)

Hold your horses here....

I thought you were a big Obama supporter?

All of this realistic conversation about the coming Obama disaster appears to contradict your recent apologies for him...

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Yes; also Carter won it in 1980.

But what he was saying, which is factually true, is that no Democrat has won the White House without West Virginia since Woodrow Wilson did it in 1916. There have been times when the Democrat has won WV and still lose the White House; that doesn't dispute what LS said.

Oh - got it.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I disagree. I haven't seen too many things about Obama that would appeal to morons whether they're educated or not including his "platitudes".

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

...where did I do that?
I am not a "big" supporter of anyone.
I would rather see Obama than Hillary on the Demo ticket, but that certainly doesn't mean "I am a big supporter of Obama".

On economics - Obama is weak to say the least, but so is Hillary and McCain.
NONE I have seen offers any real way out of this mess other than rhetoric and pinning hopes that the economy improves by next January.

Oh - so you haven't looked into his policies yet?

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Well, that obviously won't happen if the candidate you support is in the White House....

His first step will be to push taxes through the stratosphere - while the economy is still very weak.

The mind boggles.

Yet you prefer him on the ticket?

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

I prefer him on the Demo ticket basically because between the two...Hillary is the worst. I don't believe a single word the women says.
With Obama, we can at least hope he gets decent cabinet members that he will listen to - also Congress will keep his "Jimmy Carter" ways from doing too much.

I don't really support anyone - as I believe all three are equally unable to attack the economy the way it needs to be done - because doing what needs to be done will be unpopular...and there is no way in hell Hillary will do anything unpopular.....the best chance for that would be McCain - but I don't see him crossing big money lobbyist either - do you?

The big elephant in the room, pardon the pun, is that repeatedly neither party does what they say. The mechanics of DC don't facilitate one man shows and invite all sorts of 'influences' so to speak. The Dems often talk populist rhetoric yet wind up as some have termed it 'CorpDems.' The GOP talks all the good stuff about fiscal restraint, etc, yet spend like champions and either abuse and/or screw up plenty with the economy. It's no secret why so many people don't put much stock into the old economic bumperstickers because they are proven BS.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag