The curse of Craig James. Actually, whites have poor hip movement, which prevents them from juking, and evading tacklers effectively enough to be productive ball carriers. It's the same reason they can't dance very well, either. Case in point....
You go get the numbers if you want them. I'm not running errands for somebody that's going to go poof when I post them. I followed the race very closely and I think you did too. I know that Ford was pulling away before the ad (and well after Corker had thrown all that corrupt family stuff at him) and started bleeding support after and I think you do too. If you'd like to prove me wrong, you find the numbers. As it is, all you posted were the final numbers. They prove less than nothing about whether or not race was a factor. You mean the exit polls where Tennesseans told pollsters they were for Ford before they found out he liked banging white chicks? Sure thing, sailor. I'll get right on it.
Bats, are you saying the ad worked? Even after it was exposed? There are so many factors that influence an election I don't know how you can be so sure. Basso's original post suggested the results were not markedly different than elsewhere. And Ford was hardly without fault. At best we can't tell. You must have a very low opinion of voters in Tennessee.
I am not saying it was the only factor -- I'm saying it was a deciding factor in a very close race. Before the ad, Ford was on the rise, appearing on the cover of one of the major newsweeklies (I forget which) as the probable first black to win a statewide election in TN. After it, he trailed by as much as ten. And the independent numbers absolutely were markedly different than elsewhere, where they clearly favored Democrats. Well before the ad, Corker was leading. Ford caught up and ran even with him and they traded leads for a while. Then the ad came out and polls showed Ford losing by as many as ten points. Draw your own conclusions. I don't have a low opinion of voters in Tennessee; I have a low opinion of the relatively few voters that were swayed by the ad -- an ad that was virtually universally denounced as blatantly and shockingly racist -- which were enough to swing a close election.
I was just showing that basso's numbers didn't prove what he claimed they did. Using his logic behind the numbers(that if they are the same then it wasn't race due to the Webb/Allen election results) that there was a difference and with no other data provided to back up basso's claim, and the fact that unlike Webb/Allen this race had a racist ad in it, then that might explain the difference in numbers. Of course like basso, I have aboslutely no other information to back my conclusion about those numbers. I have not idea whether or not Tenn. independents are racists.
You guys are all so lazy. Here are the numbers from all weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennes...on,_2006#Television_advertisement_controversy Note how Ford's lead dissapears around the time the ad started to play (3rd and 4th week of October). Is it proof? Hardly. Is it indicative? Yes. Is basso's "data" completely useless in comparison? Of course.
I must be really slow this morn. I don't see the shift from Rhad's link. A couple even had Ford ahead in late October. I do see a lead that went back and forth throughout the race. I do see a campaign where Corker spent 40% more than Ford (and would expect that to show results later in the race) and I did see that ad which touched on alot more than the race angle . --weak on defence etc. And the narative says Corker spent much more on TV ads than any other senate candidate in the country. Was this the only ad they ran? Is it possible the rest of his TV blitz had some effect? When an ad's been exposed as this one has, I would expect there to be some backlash. So I'm not saying the ad couldn't work. Just that I would be surprised if it did. And as objectionable as the race bit was in the ad....it wasn't the only character slam on Ford. Basso's link may not exonerate Tennesseans. But I can't see anything that would reasonably indicate the ad 'worked' unless you really wanted to reach that conclusion.
it turns out the info wasn't that difficult to find, although it was a pain to format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_United_States_Senate_election,_2006 [rquoter]Television advertisement controversy A particularly negative ad titled "bimbo" endorsed by the Republican National Committee ("RNC") that aired during the third and fourth weeks of October gained national attention and condemnation from both Ford and Corker. The ad portrayed a scantily clad white woman (Johanna Goldsmith) acting as a Playboy bunny who "met Harold at the Playboy party" and invites Ford to "call me".[21][22] Responding to questions about the ad, a Ford spokesperson said that Ford went to a 2005 Playboy-sponsored Super Bowl party that was attended by more than 3,000 people,[23] and Ford himself said that he likes "football and girls" and makes no apology for either.[24] The NAACP described the ad as "a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women" and a former Republican Senator called it "a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment."[25] Corker condemned the RNC ad, calling it "tacky" and stating that his campaign has asked to have it pulled.[26] The RNC, however, continued to endorse the ad, said it had no plans to stop airing it, and dismissed charges of racism, saying it "wouldn't even entertain the premise" that the ad was racist.[27][28] In an October 24 interview with Tim Russert, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman said that he thought the ad was "fair" and that he did not have the authority to pull it.[29] The ad was also denounced by Canada's ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, and in the Parliament of Canada by MP Omar Alghabra. The ad became an issue in Canada because of an actor's statement in the advertisement, "Canada can take care of North Korea. They’re not busy." Alghabra, in the House of Commons, responded, "Is this what Canadians should be expecting as the outcome of cozying up to Mr. Bush by the prime minister and his Conservatives?"[30] On October 25, Mehlman announced that the ad was "down now" during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN.[31] In its place, Tennessee television stations ran a different RNC ad.[32][/rquoter] as the article says, the ad ran between the 3rd and 4th week of october, and was taken down by october 25th. since each pollster uses a different methodology, the only meaningful comparison is to look at the same polls before and after the ad, or to look at general trends. In all the polls cited in the accompanying article, not fully captured by the graphic, only twice in the entire race did Ford poll above 48%, for USAToday/Gallup and Beattie, and gallup had another poll from the same day showing Ford four points lower. by contrast corker polled above 48% 14 times. Rasmussen has ford at 48% on October 1st, 47% on October 13, just as the ad starts to run, and at 48% on November 1st, after the ad was pulled. Corker tracks from 43% to 47% to 49% during the same period. Rueters/Zogby and WSJ/Zogby have Ford at 40% on the 5th, 42% on the 19th, and 48.1% on the 31st. corcker at 40%, 49.4, and 49.3 during the same period. Hamilton Beattie has the race 51%-44% Ford on the 10th and 47%-45% Ford on the 26th. Survey USA had Corker up 48-46 on October 10th and the race tied at 48% on the 25th. Batman writes "I know that Ford was pulling away before the ad". he clearly wasn't. Batman also wrote (Ford) started bleeding support after (the ad). again, he didn't. there is a mild corker trend over the last 6-8 weeks of the campaign, but most of the polls before and after the ad showed a statistically insignificant difference. at best, one might conclude, absent all other factors, that the ad had a short term benefit for corker, but there is no way of knowing whether that benefit accrued because the voters of tennessee were swayed by a racist pitch, or because the voters of tennessee, a fairly conservative state, were were uncomfortable with Ford's womanizing and family. Batman's Assertion: [i[it was a deciding factor in a very close race. [/i] Conclusion: Unsupported
I was wrong about Ford's strength before the ad. I'd remembered him leading by more and for longer. I think that's because of Ford releasing favorable internal polls and Corker keeping his under wraps (a sign of bad numbers), but I could be misremembering that too. Regardless, Ford went from an exceptionally strong candidate -- one that was becoming a poster boy for the conservative Democrat strategy and poised to make history as the first Black senator from the south since reconstruction -- to trailing by as many as 8, 10 and 12. In a race as close as this one was for so long a time, everything has an impact and everything is a deciding factor. Of course I can't know for certain what was in the minds of voters, but there is a pronounced slump for Ford post-ad. If you think that slump had nothing whatever to do with the ad, well I think you're nuts. And if you think that effect played no role in the final numbers, I think you're delusional. Every factor, large or small, plays a deciding role in an election that close. One of those factors was an appeal to racists. That's a shame, which is why Corker and other Republicans denounced the ad and why it was pulled. basso's assertion is that the ad played no role whatsoever in the final numbers and even that it wasn't racist in the first place. His proof? The final election numbers, which were significantly less favorable to Democrats than was the national trend. Dumb thread.
i love it- you make ridiculous assertions for which you have zero proof, or rather your proof consist entirely of "he was a poster boy for the democratic party in the south and he was on the cover of time!" all of which is proof of an echo chamber, nothing more. and after being proved wrong, you pronounce the thread dumb. fine then- take your ball and go home.
The thread is dumb because you declared race was definitely not an issue in a state with a racist past in which a racist ad was run and you offered no proof whatsoever. I'll happily admit I can't prove for a fact that race wasn't an issue, but anecdotal evidence would suggest it did play some small role at least and in a race that close a small role can be the deciding factor. Suggesting it was definitely one was dumb since I can't know it for a fact. But suggesting it definitely wasn't is way dumber.
you also can't prove the ad was racist. "universally denounced" is "universally meaningless," unless you're engaging in racial demagoguery.
On the contrary, I would say that the only information that can be gained from these numbers alone is that race is MORE of a factor among Dems. In all three races the Republicans voted at a 94% clip for the Republican candidate, even though one of the races was white vs. white and the other two were white vs. black, with each party represented by a black man one time. On the other hand, while the Democrats showed the same partisan tendancies in the Tennessee and Virgina races, the Maryland race saw 12% of Dems supporting the Republican candidate, the only race where the Republican candidate was black but the Democratic candidate was white. The Democrats in the Maryland race are the only group from this data that shows any racial bias, and it is a bias for blacks/against whites.
Uh basso, your claim that race was "not a factor" or that the "ad had no effect" really cannot be proven either.
