Liberal Cap'n Cat Confesses To Losing His Obama "Mojo"

[AZGrizFan]

I have a hunch you enjoy being wrong

I think this link will work, I don't know how to post the actual image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2004C ... (edit).png

From 2004 presidential election, shows $$$ and time invested by candidates in final 8 weeks before election day

map follows pretty close to contested states with larger numbers of electoral votes up for grabs

in-significant numbers of either electoral or popular votes means the candidates will ignore you for the most part

If you think they ignore those places NOW, you're in for a rude awakening should we ever go to a popular vote election. They'd never leave California and New York.

[OSBF]

I think this link will work, I don't know how to post the actual image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2004C ... (edit).png

From 2004 presidential election, shows $$$ and time invested by candidates in final 8 weeks before election day

map follows pretty close to contested states with larger numbers of electoral votes up for grabs

in-significant numbers of either electoral or popular votes means the candidates will ignore you for the most part

If you think they ignore those places NOW, you're in for a rude awakening should we ever go to a popular vote election. They'd never leave California and New York.

They don't now, wouldn't be any different at all.

In '08 I think we saw Obama here in his home state of Illinois 2 times.

Candidates will spend resources where they can get the most bang for their time/buck.

Doesn't matter if electoral or popular votes are at stake.

[AZGrizFan]

In '08 I think we saw Obama here in his home state of Illinois 2 times.

Candidates will spend resources where they can get the most bang for their time/buck.

Doesn't matter if electoral or popular votes are at stake.

You just keep digging deeper, and deeper, and deeper. I'm PRETTTTTTTY sure Obama was certain he had Illinois in the bag. If THAT'S your test case for politicians' motives you REALLY need to get out more. The presence of a politician in ANY state depends WAY less on how many electoral votes are up for grabs and way MORE on whether that state is determined to be "in play" or not. Hence Obama's multiple visits to small-electoral-vote states like Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. These states were deemed "in play" based on straw polls by the news agencies and other independent pollsters. True, a politician will NEVER spend the amount of time in a Montana that he/she will in a New York, but to imply that they simply ignore those states now is ignorant.

Here's a good litmus test for you on the way this board operates, OBSF: Donks and Conks are like sharks to chum when they think there's an issue or argument they can win. Yet, the silence on this issue from all the standard board donks is deafening. If you're leading the charge on an issue on this board and look behind you and there's not a SINGLE person charging along with you, you're probably wrong.

[wideright82]

Here's a good litmus test for you on the way this board operates, OBSF: Donks and Conks are like sharks to chum when they think there's an issue or argument they can win. Yet, the silence on this issue from all the standard board donks is deafening. If you're leading the charge on an issue on this board and look behind you and there's not a SINGLE person charging along with you, you're probably wrong.

that's the best point you've ever made!

[OSBF]

In '08 I think we saw Obama here in his home state of Illinois 2 times.

Candidates will spend resources where they can get the most bang for their time/buck.

Doesn't matter if electoral or popular votes are at stake.

You just keep digging deeper, and deeper, and deeper. I'm PRETTTTTTTY sure Obama was certain he had Illinois in the bag. If THAT'S your test case for politicians' motives you REALLY need to get out more. The presence of a politician in ANY state depends WAY less on how many electoral votes are up for grabs and way MORE on whether that state is determined to be "in play" or not. Hence Obama's multiple visits to small-electoral-vote states like Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. These states were deemed "in play" based on straw polls by the news agencies and other independent pollsters. True, a politician will NEVER spend the amount of time in a Montana that he/she will in a New York, but to imply that they simply ignore those states now is ignorant.

Here's a good litmus test for you on the way this board operates, OBSF: Donks and Conks are like sharks to chum when they think there's an issue or argument they can win. Yet, the silence on this issue from all the standard board donks is deafening. If you're leading the charge on an issue on this board and look behind you and there's not a SINGLE person charging along with you, you're probably wrong.

guess you didn't open the link to the map i posted showing where resources were comitted in the final weeks of the 04 campaign.

[wideright82]

You just keep digging deeper, and deeper, and deeper. I'm PRETTTTTTTY sure Obama was certain he had Illinois in the bag. If THAT'S your test case for politicians' motives you REALLY need to get out more. The presence of a politician in ANY state depends WAY less on how many electoral votes are up for grabs and way MORE on whether that state is determined to be "in play" or not. Hence Obama's multiple visits to small-electoral-vote states like Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. These states were deemed "in play" based on straw polls by the news agencies and other independent pollsters. True, a politician will NEVER spend the amount of time in a Montana that he/she will in a New York, but to imply that they simply ignore those states now is ignorant.

Here's a good litmus test for you on the way this board operates, OBSF: Donks and Conks are like sharks to chum when they think there's an issue or argument they can win. Yet, the silence on this issue from all the standard board donks is deafening. If you're leading the charge on an issue on this board and look behind you and there's not a SINGLE person charging along with you, you're probably wrong.

guess you didn't open the link to the map i posted showing where resources were comitted in the final weeks of the 04 campaign.

It didn't work

[AZGrizFan]

guess you didn't open the link to the map i posted showing where resources were comitted in the final weeks of the 04 campaign.

You defeated your own argument. Why open the map?

[OSBF]

guess you didn't open the link to the map i posted showing where resources were comitted in the final weeks of the 04 campaign.

You defeated your own argument. Why open the map?

I know, knowledge of facts is a foreign concept to conks, I understand

[AZGrizFan]

You defeated your own argument. Why open the map?

I know, knowledge of facts is a foreign concept to conks, I understand

OK. I opened your damned map. Do you find it shocking that they spent money in the final weeks in states that were STILL IN PLAY????? Come on, OB, Cap'n spoke very highly of you. You CERTAINLY aren't this dumb....you're just joshing us, right?

[OSBF]

I know, knowledge of facts is a foreign concept to conks, I understand

OK. I opened your damned map. Do you find it shocking that they spent money in the final weeks in states that were STILL IN PLAY????? Come on, OB, Cap'n spoke very highly of you. You CERTAINLY aren't this dumb....you're just joshing us, right?

exactly my point, the resources will be spent where there is the biggest potential return on investment.

That return can be in the form of electoral votes, or popular votes, doesn't matter.

Where the potential return is relatively small, be that small number of electoral votes, small number of popular votes, or in a state already decided according to the polls, you will not see the candidates expending what the perceive to be "wasted" effort.

In fact, I've seen the arguement made that elimination of the electoral college will force the candidates to visit the low population areas more. The way it is now, there is no difference between winning a state 51% to 49%, the electoral payout to the candidate is the same as if the same state were won 80%-20%. If popular vote mattered, you might see more campaigning in certain states where swinging a few thousand votes would make a difference. I'm not sure it would matter all that much, but the point is being made by some.

I'd be in favor of a hybrid system where the states were allowed to allocate their electorate based on the popular vote, sort of like what Nebraska did in '08.

[Col Hogan]

I'd be in favor of a hybrid system where the states were allowed to allocate their electorate based on the popular vote, sort of like what Nebraska did in '08.

Each state could do that today...it's a state right to decide how to allocate their electoral votes...

[OSBF]

I'd be in favor of a hybrid system where the states were allowed to allocate their electorate based on the popular vote, sort of like what Nebraska did in '08.

Each state could do that today...it's a state right to decide how to allocate their electoral votes...

I wish more would. That would be a solid compromise that would maintain the at least perceived importance of the electoral college and place a higher value on the vote of each individual voter that excercises their constitutional right to have their voice heard in the selection of our National Leadership.

[AZGrizFan]

exactly my point, the resources will be spent where there is the biggest potential return on investment.

IN THE FINAL WEEKS. IN STATES THAT ARE UNDECIDED. Christ on a crutch, you're like talking to a wall.

[native]

Do you really want to claim a bunch of people that don't know how to follow the box and vote correctly? The ballot was not THAT confusing.

I'm not saying at all that people were not able to vote correctly. It is a fact that more Americans wanted Gore than Bush, and the Supreme Court had to step in and seat Bush. At the time, it was probably the right thing to do as the country needed closure, it needed to be over.

It is a fact that more Floridians wanted Bush than Gore.

[Cap'n Cat]

In '08 I think we saw Obama here in his home state of Illinois 2 times.

Candidates will spend resources where they can get the most bang for their time/buck.

Doesn't matter if electoral or popular votes are at stake.

You just keep digging deeper, and deeper, and deeper. I'm PRETTTTTTTY sure Obama was certain he had Illinois in the bag. If THAT'S your test case for politicians' motives you REALLY need to get out more. The presence of a politician in ANY state depends WAY less on how many electoral votes are up for grabs and way MORE on whether that state is determined to be "in play" or not. Hence Obama's multiple visits to small-electoral-vote states like Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. These states were deemed "in play" based on straw polls by the news agencies and other independent pollsters. True, a politician will NEVER spend the amount of time in a Montana that he/she will in a New York, but to imply that they simply ignore those states now is ignorant.


Here's a good litmus test for you on the way this board operates, OBSF: Donks and Conks are like sharks to chum when they think there's an issue or argument they can win. Yet, the silence on this issue from all the standard board donks is deafening. If you're leading the charge on an issue on this board and look behind you and there's not a SINGLE person charging along with you, you're probably wrong.

Let this standard board Donk say that the thread was hijacked long ago and what you clowns are arguing is far from the topic purported in post #1. And, I had my say on this subplot you're perpetuating.



*****************************************************

Now, back to MY issue.............


I am very disappointed to hear of Obama planning to send 35, 45,000 troops into Afghanistan as a surge. I am in the 59% of Democrats (acc. to a poll I saw on MSNBC this morning) that want him to begin withdrawing troops. Maybe the surge worked in Iraq, but it's a different thing in Afgx. Pat Buchanan said a surge there may disillusion his liberal base and I think he's correct.