You read this entire thread and that's wh at you got? Interesting? Not that I want us to win by actually making sure we pay attention and not draw the wrong conclusions based on faulty reasoning, but that I want us to lose? I am curious- did you also read my post in which I called on both Obama supporters and CLinton supporters to realize the real threat is McCain? Did you see that as me wanting us to lose too? Maybe the problem isn't my being skeptical. maybe the problem is that you aren't, and aren't asking more to ensure our shot at winning.
Yes, that was my fault. But I assume others are able to reason as I am. I thought it was obvious that you can't extrapolate cause here as others are attempting to do, and that it was ultimately irrelevant to try to tie this to Obama for the purposes of his Presidential bid. I assumed they brought it up becuase of his bid for President or else why bring it up. A lot of that was buried in my calling the comments spam simply because I can't imagine people not realizing what they are saying is logically flawed.
Clinton has a high approval rating in several GOP districts in NY state (many of them highly conservative) ,and I wouldn't accept that argument from her either. Indeed,when some Clinton supporter tried to use her homestate a few months back, I was called names for pointing out that it was b/s to think one can extrapolate from that. Like I said, I am pretty much neutral with whom I want to be the nominee because I don't see much difference between the two. I don't care as long as they beat McCain. I just don't want yet one more false argument for the candidates to start circulating. Not that I matter in this. People will think what they think even if the causation is flimsy. THe causation here is pretty thin. That's why I called it irrelevant- I could see the bigger point people were going to try to make, and indeed, like clockwork several of you are making it here and stoller over at open left is also making it.
I get that, but what we can extrapolate from it considering its a district in which apparently if the other supporter is right- Obama is already popular- is very little. That's why I say real proof of the coattails argument would have to have come from a GE outside of the state because that would give me some idea of whether Okay yeah this guy is appealing in places he hasn't already won people over for the GE.
I might add also with a deeply flawed candidate who was attacked by the Washington Post, had heavy support from the unions, etc. Who was Foster's oponent. What was Hassterts reputation before he left? Are there any exit polling about what influenced the voters of the district? How did Foster's message influence them? I can go on and on.
A place in which according to one of you fellow supporters he already had a 14 pt approval rating . So in other words, how is this applicable to OH or FL or MO or CA or any other state because that would be where we would want to see the evidence to give us a better sense of causation. As it is, you are saying a popular senator in his home state was able to help a candidate, but how does that translate to Obama the presidential candidate? This is the core problem with the argument.
Since some of you aren't getting why this is irrelevant let me ask a question. If he has a 14 pt approval rating- how is that helpful with regard to the claim that this is somehow coattails that are translateable to the rest of the country? What does this mean for OH or Co or FL or CA or wherever else the margins are close?
Well you like use the words fact and information, but not so much in your arguments. Here's my problem with what is essentially irrelevant information. One there isn't much we can extrapolate from this great Democratic victory with regard to states in which Obama doesn't have homestate advantage. It takes nothing away from his contribution to say this. It merely places causation here in context. Many of you want to then use this without saying it to conclude that his ability to go out and promote a Dem in his homestate is of value in say Alaska or NE or MO or CO or where ever. I am saying that's a difficult argument to make because of hoemstate advantage here. You would be on firmer ground if this occur somehwere other than IL. I would say you point even mattered then. But as it stands now, it's a thin reed, and one that ultimately had very little to do with a Democratic victory.