Remember Tim Russert's white board from the 2004 Presidential Election?
As he totaled the electoral votes coming in by hand, he kept up his mantra:
"Ohio. Ohio. Ohio."
Well, political savants, here's the latest scenario, via the New York Sun:
"Obama's Presidential Fate May Rest in Omaha"
As he totaled the electoral votes coming in by hand, he kept up his mantra:
"Ohio. Ohio. Ohio."
Well, political savants, here's the latest scenario, via the New York Sun:
"Obama's Presidential Fate May Rest in Omaha"
The possibility of such a decisive role for the Midwestern city exists because Nebraska allocates electoral votes by congressional district rather than on a statewide, winner-take-all basis.
...
(The) scenario involves the likely Democratic nominee, Senator Obama of Illinois, taking every state Senator Kerry of Massachusetts won in 2004 with the exception of New Hampshire. Under this carefully chosen sequence of events, the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator McCain of Arizona, hangs on to all of President Bush's winning states from 2004, except for Iowa, Colorado and either New Mexico or Nevada. The result: a 269-269 tie, with 270 votes needed to win the presidency.
...
Of the five electoral votes up for grabs in the Cornhusker State, the one belonging to the 2nd Congressional District is considered the best prospect for Mr. Obama, though the area is still not particularly welcoming.
Of course, the article correctly notes ( to you over-excited Obamaniacs) that the bloom is off the Obama-rose these days. The likelihood is still that McCain will take all of Nebraska's five electoral votes -- including the 2nd District's.
Still, since Omahan's can never get enough national attention thrown their way -- the CWS, NCAA, American Idol, BRK, the Olympic trials -- some Presidential fawning would be right up their alley. And, hey, isn't that Johnny Mac on his way next month?
But Obama and McCain going door-to-door in Dundee, networks in tow, in late October? Well, we can dream can't we...
(Thanks to our anonymous source for pointing to this article.)
Still, since Omahan's can never get enough national attention thrown their way -- the CWS, NCAA, American Idol, BRK, the Olympic trials -- some Presidential fawning would be right up their alley. And, hey, isn't that Johnny Mac on his way next month?
But Obama and McCain going door-to-door in Dundee, networks in tow, in late October? Well, we can dream can't we...
(Thanks to our anonymous source for pointing to this article.)
Posts
48 comments:
Hate to get off subject but I haven't found how "E" Ben voted on the Agjobs piggy that Diane Feinstein and 16 other Senate Ag Finance Committee members attached to the Iraq Funding bill...granting 1.35 million illegals amnesty.
I would say he was one of the 17. Please prove me wrong "E." It's time to start putting Americans first.
Wasn't it Omaha...Omaha...Omaha that had the most pathetic voter turnout percentage a week ago?
Just found the answer to my question. "E." was a no-show...he didn't even vote. There's the true color of a weasel showing through.
The New York Sun story is as likely to be true as Hillary, Barry and John are likely to be good presidents. The parties squat and out pops these mooks.
what is the ag finance committee?
Pass that pipe around, Sweeper.
There are so many things wrong with the Sun's scenario that one hardly knows where to start - not the least of which is their assertion that the 2nd District is the most likely to go for Obama. Not by a jugful ... those who pay attention out here are aware that the 1st, with UNL, NWU, and all those other "institutions of higher learning" (yeah, right),is more apt pickings for the liberoso.
The Sun's assumption are unabashedly (and pathetically) racist - "look, Ma, there are lots of black people in Omaha, so Obama has the best chance there". Look at his numbers - it's the college kids who are carrying him around in the so-called "red" states.
Huskers don't much care what color their candidates are - but they sure care if they are cut-and-run, taxifying, nanny gubmint elitist liberals ... and Obama damned sure is exactly that.
I'll take McCain and the over in all three Nebraska Districts ...
UW:
I agree with you -- except that I may argue that Obama gets a higher percentage in the 2nd than the 1st. Nonetheless, I only point out this article -- and Russert's interest in the theory as well -- simply because who the hell ever suggested a focus like this before? As we note, we believe that McCain will still take all 5 NE electoral votes.
Ag Finance Committee is likely a Subcommittee.
It doesn't really matter, though. The point is, when the whip cracks, the Dems from Nebraska (the ones that sound Conservative while in Nebraska) say "Thank you, may I have another." and roll over on their Constituents to appease their Masters in the Senate. The same would hold true if any of the current flock of youth that are trying to convince voters that they would hit the ground running on behalf of the people in Nebraska. They would be put in a closet until they agreed to fall into line.
While we are on the subject of E. Ben, did anyone see that Jim Esch accepted the $5000 PAC check that Bennie sent him (on Election Day, no less-remember what I said about that whip?). Funny, I wonder where he thinks Ben got all that loot. He sent back the $2500 check that Ben sent him last time because it was "dirty". I guess Jim is more accustomed to filth these days than he was last time-what with his drug tests and plagiarizing scandals.
Just what Nebraska needs-a putz that would have been thrown out of every private school he has attended, if he had been caught. Makes you wonder if he just didn't get caught-most cheats don't get that way over night!
Hey Uncle, I prefer to drink Koolaid. It is legal and created right here in Nebraska!
My prediction: All 5 electoral votes go for McCain, though in the 2nd its closer than years past,45-55%. The 1st will be a little farther apart than that. But I read the Suns article, twice to be sure. There is no mention what-so-ever about black people in the article, to claim that it is racist is false. I tried to find something in the article that even remotely has racist overtones and was un-succesfull. Maybe you should pass that pipe uncle.
As far as which Congressional district is most likely to go for Obama, there is some evidence that suggests CD 2 is at least as likely as CD 1. Survey USA polled a head-to-head Obama-McCain matchup in Nebraska back in March and Obama got 44%, 45%, and 35% in CDs 1, 2, and 3 respectively (McCain got 42%, 43%, 53%). Not that this poll means much as an isolated data point with a fairly large margin of error so early in the campaign, but I don't think that there is any better objective evidence suggesting the contrary. Plus, a lot of CD 2&3 kids go to UNL, ya know?
And, for those of you who think it's clever to associate the official drink of the state of Nebraska with brainwashing, you'd do well to know that Kool-Aid had nothing to do with the Jonestown mass murder-suicide. Flavor Aid was the product of choice (although it was probably the cyanide that killed them) for the Peoples Temple. Let's show some state pride and set this misconception straight.
securityguard:
Right you are ... the Sun article carefully avoids ANY reference to race - they understand "political correctness" as well as anyone. But they also offer no basis for their assertion of Obama's popularity in the 2nd District save for a obscure poll taken last winter (now obsolete) and the fact that BHO drew 10,000 people at a rally in Omaha. No mention of the fact that that was his ONLY Nebraska appearance (I'm betting he would have drawn many more than that in Lincoln).
So ... you're welcome to your rose-colored glasses, but I'll stay with my old retrocon cynicism that tells me that the Sun's rationale was race-based.
For the record - Senator Nelson voted against the Feinstein Amendment when it was considered before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
All members of the Committee voted, Nelson voted NO.
The language in question was subsequently removed from the supplemental spending bill during floor action in the Senate last night.
Uncle,
So because a article/publication neglects to mention race, that means that they are racist or have racist overtones in their article? Omaha doesn't have alot of black people compared to the rest of nebraska. compared to some places in the nation and we are low on the totem pole. From now on should every article that mentions obama also mention that he is black? There are alot of college kids in this district with Creighton and UNO and Metro. Obama gets alot of his support from college educated people as well, which is a large percentage of this district. The first probably has the highest percentage in the state (this is a guess, i havent looked it up for sure). You are the one injecting race into this discussion and blog, my guess is your a husker that does care what color his candidates are.
So I'm a racist because you don't agree with me??
Ah, the acrid scent of ad hominem ... the ultimate refuge of the epistemologically under-endowed.
That the epistemologically under-endowed may understand: the fox smells his own hole first.
Ooohhh, Philosophy 101 and moot court.
Maybe you are, maybe your not a racist, you are clearly not very intelligent however. I brought up the thing about race and you because you are injecting race and color into something that doesn't even have the hint of race or color, for no apparent reason. Did you read the article? your argument is absolutely assinine (its a word, look it up since you dont know it.) Where are the words or paragraphs that "tells me that the Sun's rationale was race-based." i eagerly await your reply
From here forth: Any comment made about Obama or any other man must now be followed by a comment about the melanin and pigmentation of his skin!!!
See you in the people's progressive post-racism re-education camp, UW.
A gentle observation for asecurityguard...
Uncle Wiggily is cleaning your clock. You, who misspell words regularly, resort to challenging the good Uncle's intelligence and spelling ability?! Such irony. There is little need to further explain how foolish you look; it's all on the screen in humble black and white. Black and white: another irony, that.
I thought I'd read that Obama is currently getting between 80 and 90 percent of the African-American vote in the Democratic primaries.
I'm guessing the Sun is assuming most localities with substantial black voting blocs will continue to match that percentage in the general election. This might be a faulty assumption in terms of predicting a possible Obama win in the first district, but I'm not seeing how this assumption is in itself racist.
I mean, if you're doing these kind of vote projections, wouldn't you naturally use the past voting behaviors of a demographic group as the basis of your predictions? What else would you have to go on?
Am I missing something?
my spelling and grammar are impeccable, however my typing sucksm but its a blog and i really dont care. UW claimed the article was racist, but has yet to explain how. I was wrong for my personal comment on the integrity of UW, and my apologies sir. i just want to know what is racist about the Suns article (i know someone who works for them, not but a diiferent columnist) i dont like seeing his paper being attacked for no reason. 'sker, uncle or ptg please enlighten me to the unabashedly (and pathetically) racist statements in that article. once again, i eagerly await a reply
Perhaps an "awareness of race" is called racist these days, but it isn't the racism I know and abjure. The article makes no mention of the fact that Obama is half Negro and half White.
The only good old-fashioned racist I recognize in the article is Barack Obama. Its just my opinion, based on what little any of us know about the man. I think he is a race bigot and an pseudo-intellectual snob.
I can't for the life of me imagine why American Negroes would vote for him en masse as they do. Unless it be an "awareness of race" on their part.
ptg: You meant to write African Americans, didn't you?
I believe security is still waiting for an explanation of how the article is racist, like I am.
The racism inherent in the referenced article is carefully hidden. The author clearly uses the Pythonesque "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more" subterfuge to conceal his racist message.
The racist message the author takes such pains to conceal: Nebraska's Negroes are aware of their race. Only this "race awareness" could explain why they choose to live in close proximity to other Nebraska Negroes, thereby increasing their electoral clout, intentionally or not.
Add the foregoing to the fact that nearly all Nebraskans are aware of Barack Obama's racial heritage, and you have some of the makings for a racist syllogism.
The article never articulates the major premise of this syllogism overtly, but the conclusion couldn't be reached without it. The non-PC hidden premise: many Negroes are racists and will make political choices for racist reasons.
Couldn't have said it better meself, pt. Seems heartland libs are no different than the bi-coastal variety - they all scream "RACIST!" at anyone who dares peek behind the curtain of their ideological hypocrisy.
As for SecurityGuard - if thinking I'm a racist blows your skirt up, then knock yourself out. I explained at least twice why I believe the Sun's article to be race-based, and I don't care to do it again. Nearly everyone looking at this silly dust-up got my point, but it was apparently a little too arcane for you. I would point out that if you can't field this kind of slow-roller then you might want to consider going back down to the minors for a couple more seasons.
At any rate, I am done with this yarpy confab and I apologize to the Sweeper (and all those who frequent his back porch here on Leavenworth Street) for cluttering their screens with school yard bickering instead of meaningful debate.
In the meantime, you go on back upstairs and whip your skippy while the Big Pants people talk ....
Omaha's percentage of African American's is about 13%. So in the 2nd district it is probably 10% of the population. If Barak Obama wins the vote in the 2nd district it will be because of white voters. I think people need to remember that African American's have done well in Omaha elections. Brenda Council narrowly lost to Hal Daub, not because of white voters, but because her own council district had the lowest turn out. Franklin Thompsen in the whitest of white council districts has won election twice. Richard Taketchi and Lormong Lo also have won as well. Give Omahans some credit if you get beat here as a minority candidate it is about your ideas and performance and not based your skin color.
I see. Blacks vote for Democrats because they're racist. Nice argument.
Well, as a Pantone 157. I would just like to say that I will only support a candidate that uses both the CMYK and RGB spectrums equally.
This will be my last comment on it as well: Your logic and arguments are patently flawed. "The racist message the author takes such pains to conceal: Nebraska's Negroes are aware of their race. Only this "race awareness" could explain why they choose to live in close proximity to other Nebraska Negroes, thereby increasing their electoral clout, intentionally or not" No where in the article is there a mention of race, "negroes" or any color what-so-ever. if you are indeed reading this article and drawing these conclusions then you are practicing "fuzzy math" ie, taking 1+1=11. How many of the suns readers know the racial demographics of Omaha? how do they know that "negroes" are concentrated in one area in Omaha? The inherrent racism is "so carefully hidden" that you have to invent it to find it! The message is straight forward - 1st dist is the best chance for dem electoral vote because this is the closest spread between dems and reps. I wont waste brain power trying to argue this anymore. PTG and uncle, you are so clearly outside of rational thinking it is astounding. Good day to both of you
Did you read the article? your argument is absolutely assinine (its a word, look it up since you dont know it.)
Uh, no, it's not a word.
'Asinine' is a word, though. A very relevant one.
Chris Rodgers, who represents a predominately African-American district on the Douglas County board was predicting a big increase in voter turnout in north Omaha because of Obama. That prediction was part of a WSJ article about upbeat propsects for Nebraska Democrats about a month back. If traditional voting patterns for African-Americans hold, then Obama should be able to squeeze out a significant absoulte and relative number of votes out of Omaha than any Democratic candidate in recent memory. I've lived in both cities and I think, besides the newspapers that there isn't a big differnce poltically between the two cities. The difference between the CD1 and CD2 is that Omaha basically is the CD while any liberal tendencies of Lincoln are counter-balanced by the rural parts of the CD1.
This might not be the place -- but WHO would want to be a Democrat today let alone support Obama when he sold his soul to the labor union thugs.
Obama said he would eliminate oversight to make sure the unions didn't defraud rank and file workers.
Since 2001 Bush's Labor Standards group has gotten back over $100,000,000 to deserving workers that had been cheated out of their earnings by big labor. Senator Obama promised to cut back oversight. Does he represent the workers of America???
It looks like Bush is a better friend of the worker than the sweet talkers of CHANGE Obama or Clinton or Kleeb.
Again ---- why would the people that get their hands dirty be a Democrat. Just a reminder -- Kleeb assured his union friends that he would support removing the secret ballot from workers. What a scum bag!!!
If Obama and Kleeb are our friends --- we sure as hell don't need enemies!!!!
How will Blue Collar Hard Working WHITE Democratic voters vote this fall in Omaha? It seems race is on the Dem side and not with the R's.
Joe6,
What good are unions going to do you after Bush and his friends get done crating up, and shipping overseas the last U.S. factory?
BTO ---- you are always so RIGHT!!! Bush will get blamed for EVERYTHING and will for years, even though most of the Bush years brought us unemployment at record lows and good economic and tax revenue growth most of his term.
I know we have lost "good" jobs --- like when Democratic pimp George Soros moved his financial kingdom OFF SHORE. Or like our local Progressive Capitalist Pig (PCP)Buffett buying more and more furniture from China and Viet Nam rather than the U.S.
BTO --- in reality there have been many jobs created in the US --- it is foreign auto makers that have stepped in because unions have destroyed the big three. The unions might have provided some short term gain for their own life style of the rich and famous and the workers --- but long term they have cut workers off at the knees.
Bush appears to be more concerned about the "workers" of America while Obama cares more about selling his soul to the Union leadership, people stealing from the rank and file. In fact, it will be you and me as taxpayers bailing out the auto workers health and retirement funds that will mysteriously disappear.
Two years ago I was excited to have a Dem majority in Congress, but now two years later, BTO, tell me what has Nancy accomplished.
SS
I know how you have mentioned that the OWH doesn't give you credit for the stories they steal from you. I wanted to point out the shout out you got on this post from the LJS in Gordon Winters editorial story
http://www.journalstar.com/blog/opinion.phptitle=o_stands_for_obama_in_omaha&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
If I had to pay the highest corporate tax rate in the world, I would move my operations out of the country. The corporate tax rate should be lowered and incentives given to stay and create more jobs.
Furthermore, more jobs were insourced - meaning foreign companies creating jobs here, than were outsourced by American copanies moving jobs to China, etc.
Also, unions destroyed the Auto Makers.
Yup. Them damned unions. Who in the hell do they think they are looking out for the welfare of their members? Don't they know that the executives of the companies they work for need the money more than they do? Gosh, how are those poor babies going to afford the upkeep on their yachts if George W. doesn't give them some more tax breaks? Heck we can just raise the taxes on the working poor to make up for it.
Thank God we've had George W. Bush to show us the light! Piss down, oops, 'scuze me, trickle down economics is good for the workers. Shoot, if they make too much money they'll just go blow it on things like food for their families, health care and education for their kids. The wealthy know how to make better use of money than poor folks. It is only right that we allow them to handle most of it.
Besides, if those workers earn less they'll be more appreciative of the crumbs the business owners toss them. Heck, they'll probably even be willing to work longer hours under less safe conditions, which will make even more profit. And we all know that more profit is good . . . for the rich.
BTO --- you are right again. Our country is just down the toilet without Big Labor taking the lead. They created a vast amount of jobs in the past and no one appreciated them.
How do you do it enlightening us so much --- it is better to have unions steal from the hard workers than encourage entrepreneurs to create new jobs. And if we the workers don’t like the job we MUST stay there. Whoa --- BTO --- here is a new concept. If you don’t like whom you work for or what you are doing ---- start your own business.
Nah!!!! That will never work --- free enterprise only works in Russia and other countries, it will never work here.
BTO --- do you have a government job, like Lisa H or what??? You thinking is starting to sour!!!!!!!
We also need the PROGRESSIVE thinking of Obama ----- where he will rid our society of the TERRIBLE Bush tax cuts so the family making $100,000 per year can have a 50% increase in their tax burden to pay for all our bloated government programs.
Three cheers for Union and more Government!!!!
;Joe12,
Do you drink that entire 12 pack before blogging? Just asking . . .
How far in the past do you have to go to get to all those jobs big labor created? I guess I'm old enough to remember it since I'm officially a curmudgeon (AARP wants me). Back in those glorious '50s, when I was a kid, the CEO of a corporation typcially took home about 50x what an average worker in his corporation made. That wasn't enough? Now they cry when they're only making 50,000x as much. Boo hoo hoo hoo!
Have there been violations of the trust between union leaders and the rank and file? Yeah. Has there been an even greater violation of the trust between big business and labor? Hell yeah!
Uhhhhh, Joe. Sorry, you dozed off there for a moment. I'm self employed already, I believe I mentioned that a time or two in the past, or are you a new reader here on the Leavenworth St. block?
Let me ask you a question Joe12, who do you want to pay for all the billions, or is it now trillions, of dollars of debt that George W. Bush has run our country into? Somebody has to pay for it, I just want to know who YOU think should do it.
Joe,
Just wanted set the record straight that I don't work a "government" job.
And for your consideration:
Unemployment rates - The level hung around 7.2% as Clinton took over in 1993. The rates dropped steadily to a low of 3.8% in April 2000. It hung around 3.9% as that year closed out.
The rate began showing an uptick again, showing a high of 6.3% in June 2003. Now it hung around 5.6% (give or take) for a year, until it dropped steadily in mid/late 2006 to a low of 4.4% in October 2006. It started climbing again soon after, and is currently hanging around 5.1%.
And to whoever said the US pays the "highest corporate tax in the world":
Bangladesh 40%
Barbados 40%
India 30-40%
Saudia Arabia 20-85%
Syria 10-45%
USA 15-39%
We pay a lot less individual taxes than most countries (others ranging anywhere from 25-68%).
Carry on.
Lisa ---- Who signs your paycheck? (Either electronically or in real life) I thought in your line of work it was the State Treasurer ---- Shane Osborn.
If funding is either federal or state or both is that NOT GOVERNMENT that employees you????
Or have you changed your occupation in the last year or so? Or is this one of those --- it depends on how you define "is"????
Taxpayer -
My personal life, quite frankly, is none of your business. But that aside, Street Sweeper actually mentioned what I'm doing a while back since there was a public announcement. The bottom line - I'm not a government employee.
I'll just leave it at that.
Now off to find some BBQ and a beer.
Do we really want to be grouped with Barbados, Bangladesh and Syria. If you look at Europe, we pay considerably more in the corporate rate than they do.
Hong Kong pays 17.5%
Hungary pays 16.0%
Ireland 12.5%
Europe: 25 countries 26.6%
U.S. 39.5
I would rather be in line with Hong Kong, The EU, Ireland than Syria, Bangladesh and Saudia Arabia.
America needs to wake up to reality that we need to reform our tax code to better compete in the global economy.
9 nations in Central and eastern Europe have enacted flat tax and revived severely depreciated markets in a short period.
BIG RED --- as you can see Lisa is not terrible impartial. She is great at misleading people with half truths that is why I stopped peaking in on her blog.
Don't bother going there it is a waste of time.
She fits in with Left Extremist Progressives of Daily KOS --- American haters.
People who always know they are right are political furniture.
Post a Comment