It's Edwards!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Carolinas aren't half black; they're both roughly 70% white. If they were half black, then given the overwhelmingly Democratic voting of blacks, the Carolinas would be very Democratic states. Jesse Helms alone demonstrates that ain't the case. I think "cracker states" may have been a reasonable appellation.

There are more blacks as a percentage of population in North and South Carolina than in New York, Illinois, and Michigan. Are those stats 'cracker states' then?

[JohnT]

Don't forget the renowned cracker states of Connecticut (less than 10% African-American), Mass. (5.4% A-A), and Vermont (.5% A-A: and no, I didn't misplace the decimal) Imran.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Read the sentance again, will you? Gore doesn't sigh, headlines say Bush messed up. Notice I said the headlines the next day 'SAY', not 'said'.

Regardless, Bush WASN'T a disaster, even without the sighing of Gore. Gore's behavior didn't even become a big issue until over a day later when the Republicans played it up a lot. But the newspapers the next day all said that Bush had been competent in his debate performance. And that was all he really needed to do, given his expectations

Since he ain't a front runner, why would headlines come out? Did Kucinich have headlines after he said some of his kooky things?

The point is, it wasn't in the articles, either. Nobody was saying, "Edwards really blew the debates!" I'm waiting for some evidence that his debate performance was such a disaster, as you're claiming. Hell, it was after some supposedly dismal debate showings that he almost ended up in a 3-way tie in Iowa, wasn't it?

In fact, Edwards won recognition for his Wisconsin debate performance, and made the most noted quip. In reference to a long-winded Kerry reply, he said "That's the longest answer to a yes-or-no-question I've ever heard."

Come on. He said he was against DoMA, because he was for every state deciding for themselves, which is EXACTLY what DoMA is! I mean that is kind of a big deal. Getting a piece of legislation wrong that everyone else on stage was intimately familiar with (meaning that most people in Washington were probably the same).

And again, what dramatic efect has DoMA had on our country since its passing? You keep ignoring the point that it really, so far, has been an inconsequential bill. You're playing this up to far greater significance that it was in the debates.

Basically the media was hammering the fact that Quayle lied about this and lied about that. The pundits said if the public knew how much he lied they would agree he was trounced, instead of just barely beaten, and then kept telling the public how much he lied. And it wasn't just left-wing biased sources but mainstream sources like CNN and ABC reporters, who harped on how much Quayle lied and thus lost the debate badly. You don't think that had an effect on the public at all?

The pundits did not agree he was trounced, Imran. Care to overstate your case any more?

http://www2.kenyon.edu/orgs/Collegian/web/092800/news-8.htm

"Yet before overestimating Gore’s talent as a debator, it is useful to keep in mind that he did not convincingly trounce Dan Quayle in the 1992 vice-presidential debate."

"Dan Quayle did far better in last night's vice-presidential debate than he did in the famous 1988 clash. In fact, he performed much better than the President did in Sunday night's debate."-Boston Globe

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/07/fallows.htm

"But Quayle resolutely stuck to his message, in manner and content -- always deliberately abrasive, always looking past Gore to the real target, Clinton. And Warren Rudman was proved right. Gore did not adapt in response. Not once in the ninety minutes of the debate did Gore try to counter Quayle's increasingly dismissive references to Clinton or to answer his baiting question: Why does this man deserve to be President? Instead he stuck to the agreed-on script, which called for emphasizing "It's the economy, stupid" issues and for casting George Bush as passive and out of touch..."

[The analysis goes on to say that Gore was too tepid in his response to Quayle's attacks]

http://www.juntosociety.com/vp/quayle.html

"Gore and Quayle argued over environmental regulations, Quayle brought up the Democratic presidential candidates moral values, and Gore reminded viewers of the sagging economy. Who actually won the debate is up to personal opinion"

Of course there's tons more. But my point has more than adequately been shown that there was NO consensus that either candidate won that particular debate, and that means Quayle definitely held his own. It was by no means a disaster for him or their campaign. And public perception polls taken after the debates bear that out--people said neither really won. And no, it had utterly no effect on the polls. As I said, VP debates never do.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I have been Noticing a Lot of Incorrect statments conserning North and South Carolina in this Thread.

First off Edwards is a NORTH CAROLINA senator, he is FROM that state and it is in that state that he was elected senator, as far as I know he has done NOTHING in SC.

Secondly their is realy no such thing as the "Carolinas" these 2 states are RADICALY differnt culturaly and Politicaly (Disclaimer: I am from North Carolina). South Carolina was as you should all know the state that started the Civil war by firing on fort Sumpter and suceeded first. North Carolina on the other hand dilly dallyed and was the LAST state to suseed from the union. South Carolina's Conservatism is maked by a mile wide streak of "How Dare you tell us what to!!!" They consider ANY advice from outside a threat, even if it comes from other conservatives, notice that durring the Republican Primary their was a debate in South Carolina about taking the Confederate flag off the State Capital. Despite the potential damage that would be suffered on a national level by failing to "denouce racim" neither Bush nor McCain would touch that topic with a 10 foot pole. They both knew that even GIVING an opinion on an internal issue of South Carolina would be disasterous. Lastly South Carolina is about 40-50% Black but many of thouse Blacks are Conservative (especialy Fiscaly) so the state is absolutly untouchable for the Democratic party.

North Carolina is like a whole other world, our state is less Black then South Carolina at about 30%. Partly due to the fact we have parts of the Apalachian mountains in the west of the state and these mountinous regions were far to poor to ever afford slaves (this is typicaly the pattern throughout the south). Despite this the state is far more liberal and has higher taxes and more goverment control. For example South Carolina has no practicaly no zoneing laws, if you own land you can do ANYTHING with it. Result is ofcorse that their are decaying trailors scattered everware around SouthCarolina. North Carolina also spends money to create some fine Universities and Research Parks which are far and few between in South Carolina. Senator Jesse Helms was unfortunatly from North Carolina and was know to be a terrible Biggot in addition to being a fat cat Republican. I suspect the man stayed in office mostly by shear weight, he had help the position for many terms and was hardly worth running against, your typical entrenched senator. Despite this the state as a whole could never be considered as conservative or republican leaning as South Carolina.
Lastly if the preceeding post is any indication people in North Carolina consider South Carolinians SUPER RED NECKS, wial we are at best mild Red Necks compared to the rest of the nation, in short South Carolina gives us a bad name.


Now as for Edwards as the VP, I think its a hugely better choice then Gephart (he is a human chipmunk who desperatly needs EYE BROWS before I can take him seriously). McCain would be a better choice in my opinion but thats not a real posibility. Only other choice would be some key state swinger like Graham, thats Edwards only downside he isnt a state swinger at best he makes North Carolina up for grabs but by no means delivers it to Kerry. Their obviously aiming for a broader national strategy here rather then state picking.

[DanS]

I agree that NC and SC are radically different states politically. You should have seen the last SC Senate debates. 1.5 hours of *****ing and moaning about liberals from both candidates, even though there's probably not one true liberal in SC.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There are more blacks as a percentage of population in North and South Carolina than in New York, Illinois, and Michigan. Are those stats 'cracker states' then?

Imran, do you ever just make an honest, straightforward, sensible case, or does your training prohibit it?

Northern states are not "cracker" states, more or less by definition. I didn't imply that white meant cracker; I was responding to Oerdin's casual statement that the Carolinas were half black and thus not cracker.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG] Lastly South Carolina is about 40-50% Black but many of thouse Blacks are Conservative (especialy Fiscaly) so the state is absolutly untouchable for the Democratic party.

North Carolina is like a whole other world, our state is less Black then South Carolina at about 30%.

The US Census Bureau gives the percentages as:

North Carolina -- 72.1% white, 21.6% black
South Carolina -- 67.2% white, 29.5% black

I stand by my statement that both states are roughly 70% white rather than half black.

Interesting how you overestimate the black populations.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Well I correctly pointed out that their was about a 10% difference between the states, I just over-estimated each by 10%. Its typical for minorities to be over-estimated by an off the top of your head guesses.

As I said the Mountinous regions of NC have few blacks and I wasn't in that region I was in about the middle of the state, in my schools it was about 30% (or so I estimated).

South Carolina I was using figures I had heard ofcorse, in sertain areas it will reach the higher percentages I mentioned and in select regions you can have black majorities.

Its hard to estimate these % based on who you see on the street though as their a lot of ethnic enclaves (segragation by choice basicaly). North Carolina created an infamus "13th district" which was majority black by snaking the district through out the whole state and encompassing dozens of small black enclaves often only a few blocks in size. The courts did strike the thing down eventualy though as it was an obvious jerrymander.

I moved out to Arizona (about 1% black) about 5 years ago I am realy suprized at the differnce.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus, first the New York Times is embarassed, now the New York Post. Does NYC have any reputable papers left?

[Apocalypse]

<-->

[Agathon]

Mine was better.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Jesus, first the New York Times is embarassed, now the New York Post. Does NYC have any reputable papers left?

Ignorign the tired bit, you thought ever the NYP was reputable?

Says a lot about your choice of sources, really.

[Drake Tungsten]

I never thought New York had reputable papers...

edit: My previous statement is incorrect. I had forgotten about the Wall Street Journal, which is definitely a reputable paper. My apologies for the error...

[GePap]

Except you read the WSJ editorials, so your credability stays low. Specially after posting that Yale Study. Man, did that study get pwned

[Drake Tungsten]

Except you read the WSJ editorials, so your credability stays low.

I haven't read a WSJ editorial in months. Nice try, moran...