General Election GDT 11/04/2008

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Mary Landrieu from LA and whatshisface from Nebraska are two conservative Democratic senators. A lot of the state governments in the South are controlled by Conservative Democrats.

I realize that there are conservative Democrats. Heck my father claims to be one.

They are just hard to find anymore, when in the 50's they were somewhat prevalent.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I realize that there are conservative Democrats. Heck my father claims to be one.

They are just hard to find anymore, when in the 50's they were somewhat prevalent.

Well, it's the same way with Liberal Republicans. There are no Nelson Rockefellers or, my favorite, Alf Landons, in the Republican party anymore. Part of it started in 1964 when a lot of the ultra-conservatives left the Democrats because of civil rights and in turn the liberals all left the Republicans, but even then, Nixon was a moderate, almost liberal, despite his evil. A lot of conservatives then left the Democrats in the 70's. 1980, I think, sealed the ideological separation between the parties.

[mary]

I could only vote on state elections, but I voted for 1 democrat, 1 republican, and a bunch of libertarians.

[Rhylan]

Rep to mcsluggo.

[92bDad]

You folks are proving my point to abolish the party system.

The majority of elected officials on the National level vote on legislation based on party affiliation and for the most part, the Republican Party fits closer to my values.

I am certain that there are boneheads in the Republican party, but I know for the most part those boneheads will vote more in favor of what I want than the Democrats.

I am certain that there are quality folks in the Democratic party, who if they were not tied to the Democratic party could vote along the same side of the issues that I personally stand on, but due to the party system, when push comes to shove, they vote along the side of the Democratic party.

So to answer you question...no I don't vote for any Democrats. I am more likely to vote Republican or Libertarian than I ever would Democrat. At least a Lib/Independant will vote as themselves on issues...believe it or not, I may actually be coming around on someone like Ron Paul, even if I disagree with one key issue...he appears to be a man who doesn't follow a party platform, but rather his own beliefs.

I wont say that I never would vote for a Democrat, give me a Democrat who will stand for the things I believe in and actually vote outside of the Party box, then I would consider them a good candidate...but I would have to see a history of that candidate bucking the party system.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

So to answer you question...no I don't vote for any Democrats. I am more likely to vote Republican or Libertarian than I ever would Democrat. At least a Lib/Independant will vote as themselves on issues...believe it or not, I may actually be coming around on someone like Ron Paul, even if I disagree with one key issue...he appears to be a man who doesn't follow a party platform, but rather his own beliefs.

Do you not remember saying that Ron Paul is nothing but a Democrat in sheep's clothing, like, three months ago?

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Do you not remember saying that Ron Paul is nothing but a Democrat in sheep's clothing, like, three months ago?

For shame. Ron Paul is an actual conservative, moreso than almost anybody alive. Sure, argue with him about Iraq all you want - I recognize most here who are conservative would disagree - but by the book, Paul is astoundingly conservative.

This all just makes me so freakin' tired. I wish I had brought up the 90% black Democrat thing when they went 90% for Kerry. Maybe I did, can someone search the archive? Silk, wanna do that for me?

Anything to get you guys to realize that I'm just wondering why a whole ethnic group is so lock stock and barrel for one party when we're 40 years removed from Civil Rights legislation. This has nothing to do with Barack specifically

So far only Underdog and mcsluggo have been able to give any sort of discussion point on this. And it still begs the question why we assume people who aren't white can be approached as a monolithic voting block. Why do we assume that if you're not white, you're just a part of one of the non-white herds? That was my whole question.

My final statement is that I think it is unfortunate for all Americans that some Americans let themselves get herded around as political sheep based on their skin color..

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

For shame. Ron Paul is an actual conservative, moreso than almost anybody alive. Sure, argue with him about Iraq all you want - I recognize most here who are conservative would disagree - but by the book, Paul is astoundingly conservative.

This all just makes me so freakin' tired. I wish I had brought up the 90% black Democrat thing when they went 90% for Kerry. Maybe I did, can someone search the archive? Silk, wanna do that for me?

Anything to get you guys to realize that I'm just wondering why a whole ethnic group is so lock stock and barrel for one party when we're 40 years removed from Civil Rights legislation. This has nothing to do with Barack specifically

So far only Underdog and mcsluggo have been able to give any sort of discussion point on this. And it still begs the question why we assume people who aren't white can be approached as a monolithic voting block. Why do we assume that if you're not white, you're just a part of one of the non-white herds? That was my whole question.

My final statement is that I think it is unfortunate for all Americans that some Americans let themselves get herded around as political sheep based on their skin color..

See, once again you refuse to see where you were wrong. Now, you want to play innocent to seem like you just want to know why blacks vote for Democrats.

I gave you the correct answer b4 anyone else: http://dallas-mavs.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=369 . You just refused to accept it and ignored it. Now look at your post above calling blacks political sheeps.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

See, once again you refuse to see where you were wrong. Now, you want to play innocent to seem like you just want to know why blacks vote for Democrats.

I gave you the correct answer b4 anyone else: http://dallas-mavs.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=369 . You just refused to accept it and ignored it. Now look at your post above calling blacks political sheeps.

Your answer was, "Blacks did not vote for Obama just because he is Black." I agree. But that wasn't the answer to the question I posed.

Your problem, again, is reading comprehension. You read what you want to hear, instead of what people are saying.

White evangelicals are political sheep, too. But I can sit here and tell you exactly what the Republican establishment does to bait them into it - mcsluggo touched on it quite well a few posts down.

The point I'm making is no one is willing to dive into that relating to Democrats and the black vote, in much the same way it is well documented and patently obvious related to Republicans and the white evangelical vote.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Do you not remember saying that Ron Paul is nothing but a Democrat in sheep's clothing, like, three months ago?

Did you not read that I said..."I may be coming around on a guy like Ron Paul" - I have the ability to change my mind with further research. Back then all I knew about Ron Paul was his stance as Anti-War, which did NOT set well with me and essentially anything else he stated never registered.

As I have gone and seeked out some information and obtained some quality information from this board, I am getting educated on the merits of Ron Paul...but I am not completely there, but I can respect the man who stands up for his beliefs regardless of what those within a party say about him.

In other words, perhaps I should say, I was Wrong about Ron Paul...now I am looking to learn more about the guy...he is rather interesting.

[92bDad]

Silk,

Are you saying to earn your vote, a Republican must be:

* for Abortion?
* for higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, thus providing less jobs?
* for smaller military and reduced military funding?
* for cut and run military tactics and a more passive stance on National Defense?


What exactly is it that you want from your elected official?

The more you right, the more I doubt your claimed Republican ties.

Your a funny man who has yet to share views on issues and how those you elected will support those issues.

We are willing to listen and waiting on your reply.

[Mavdog]

it is a very interesting dilemna, the values of the republican party are very much aligned with the values of both black americans and also latino americans....yet they pull very, very few black votes and a low amount of latino votes.

so why doesn't the party of lincoln, the party that opposed the dixiecrat bigots of the south, get the respect?

it comes down to pr. the republicans don't do a very good job of reaching out to black american voters, and the democrats have. this has been the case ever since the civil rights act in 64, and the earler pictures of the kennedy's forcing the governors in the south to back down from the segregation they defended.

there could be a basis of disconnect on pocketbook issues, with the average black and latino household earning less than the average anglo household the republican emphasis on lower taxes on the above average income housholds (read anglo) seems counterproductive in appealing to black and latino households.

on social issues it is amazing that the traditional values emphasized by republicans, and shared by the average black household, don't appeal to the black voters more.

after yesterday's election i can only predict that any chance of a divorce of black voters from the democrats is slim and none...

[Big Boy Laroux]

dude, i edited my post to add the ".000000000001%" statement.

what set me off, Silk, was your "that is ______ baiting" post. that's what did it. Not any of the other posts on this thread. that SINGLE ridiculous post of yours. so kudos to you.

Man, i'm done with you, just like I'm done with 92bdad. Go find another sandbox to play in. Better hope it's not WHITE sand, though.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

dude, i edited my post to add the ".000000000001%" statement.

what set me off, Silk, was your "that is ______ baiting" post. that's what did it. Not any of the other posts on this thread. that SINGLE ridiculous post of yours. so kudos to you.

Man, i'm done with you, just like I'm done with 92bdad. Go find another sandbox to play in. Better hope it's not WHITE sand, though.

Think about how silly that is. You got ticked off by my post that MOCKED Rhylan post that made a statement similar to that except about blacks. First, you claim I race bait, but when I point out someone else saying similar statements and I mock them by saying they race bait, then you are ticked off???????????? Go figure???

[fluid.forty.one]

magic johnson on CNN talking about obama lol

[dude1394]

Well cubes did.

I voted for President Elect Obama.

The rest of my votes went almost exclusively to Republicans , Libertarians and Independents.

In looking at the Democratic platform, there are a few things I agree with, but on the economic side, other than being ok with him raising my effective tax rate to 40pct, there isn’t a lot of his economic policy that I do agree with him on. So why did I vote for him ?

Its simple. Having an elected black President will do more to energize this country than any economic or social policy ever could. In a single day of voting, our amazing country once again reinvigorated the dream that any child in this country, no matter what circumstances they are born into, can grow up to be anything they want, including President of the United States.

That dream, staying viable, being reinvigorated, will do more for this country than any economic policy or any legislation that could ever be passed.

I have said it before, the power of the American Spirit is what separates our country from every other. We have been able to overcome the stupidity that politicians do every year, and will do for ever more. The election of Barack Obama is a shot of adrenaline for those who felt they could never participate in the American Dream.

How do you stimulate and turn around the economy in this day and age ? Motivate those who in the past couldn’t , wouldn’t or didn’t, into those who can and do. Motivate those who can and do, to continue to innovate and increase productivity.

As any successful CEO will tell you, leadership, vision and motivation has far more impact on results than any tax cut or increase. While I prefer lower taxes, I can tell you that no entrepreneur or CEO worth a damn in this country gives up or works less because of a change in tax policy. In this country you work harder to achieve your dreams and goals.

I can honestly say that I never thought that I would see a black President in my lifetime. I’m incredibly proud and excited to be part of this moment in our history. I believe that the election of President Obama will energize many, many more of our fellow citizens to work harder to achieve our goals.

I’m Bullish on America.

[Usually Lurkin]

This report might have been titled: "Running with and without a base"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...igher-than-04/

Report: '08 turnout same as or only slightly higher than '04
Posted: 01:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A new report from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday’s election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago — or at most has risen by less than 1 percent.

Click here to read the entire report.

The report released Thursday estimates that between 126.5 and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots in the presidential election earlier this week. Those figures represent 60.7 percent or, at most, 61.7 percent of those eligible to vote in the country.

“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.

“Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004,” Curtis Gans, the center’s director, said in the report. “But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”

Some experts also note that national turnout trends may mask higher turnout in swing states with more intensive attempts by both campaigns to get their supporters to the polls. Several large states, including California and New York, had no statewide races and virtually no advertising or get-out-the-vote efforts by either presidential campaign.

According to the report, several Southern states — North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, and Mississippi — and the District of Columbia saw the greatest increases in voter turnout.

Overall turnout was highest in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, South Dakota and North Carolina, according to the report.

In 2004, 122 million Americans voted in the general election.

edit: a post at powerlineblog says that the AU study left out some west coast states (like CA!)

[92bDad]

Interesting post regarding voter turnout.

In the wake of this election, I would urge the Republican party to do many many things...but one of the top priorities would be to stop assuming California is only a Democratic state. They should be making efforts now to start winning Republican California voters. Turn California into a Swing state, rather than just sit idle.

The Republican party has ignored California and as result we see the large number of voting for Democratic candidates, but we can see with the various propositions that there are more than enough Conservative minded voters within the state.

Rather than bash California and its citizens, they must work to win the hearts and minds of California citizens. Call me crazy, but that is a key ground that I truly believe can be won over by the Republicans if they go after that vote.

If they can win California, then they can win the rest of the country.

Are the Republicans willing to do what it takes? Stick to their values rather than float in the middle and stand for nothing?

Saddly there are other criteria, voting blocs that are defined by racial lines...this is truly a sad state of affairs, but never the less, they must go out and reach out to the various ethnic voting groups. Each of which has a strong conservative values system and they must tap into those values, without tearing individuals down. They must develope and strengthen groups that compete with left wing groups such as ACLU and NAACP and ACORN. These groups have done well for their constituents, but they only do this for a portion of them...the Republicans and Conservatives must support other such groups.

The closest that I can compare of a group that I am aware of is the differences between "Planned Parenthood" groups and "Pregnancy Resource Center" organizations.

The Republicans must bring more awareness to resources that offer the type of support for individuals that Republicans believe in.

They must show the various voting blocs that they can have diversity of beliefs, opinions and have support for what they want in life.

It will be a long hard road, the Democrats have done a great job of demonizing Republicans, for that I give the Democrats credit. It's up to Republicans to get the truth out about Republicans, it is also up to Republicans to act on that truth and not find themselves caught up in lies.

As they say, the truth shall set you free.

Discredit me all you want and discredit the link below...but it well worth exploring.

I have complete faith and hope in the American people and it is up to the Republican party to restore that faith into the American people.

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans....main&x=4837891

[92bDad]

Democrat-controlled cities that are burdened by socialism and mired in poverty:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY (2nd on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1954
Cincinnati, OH (3rd on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1984
Cleveland, OH (4th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1989
Miami, FL (5th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor ever
St. Louis, MO (6th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1949
El Paso, TX (7th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor ever
Milwaukee, WI (8th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1908
Philadelphia, PA (9th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1952
Newark, NJ (10th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1907

Einstein once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Einstein once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

So why do we keep voting at all then?

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Underdog

So why do we keep voting at all then?

What are you recommending?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

What are you recommending?

I recommend not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I recommend not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

So how would you work on improviding those 10 poverty stricken cities with a history of Democratic leadership?

[mary]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Democrat-controlled cities that are burdened by socialism and mired in poverty:

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY (2nd on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1954
Cincinnati, OH (3rd on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1984
Cleveland, OH (4th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1989
Miami, FL (5th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor ever
St. Louis, MO (6th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1949
El Paso, TX (7th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor ever
Milwaukee, WI (8th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1908
Philadelphia, PA (9th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1952
Newark, NJ (10th on the poverty rate list); no Republican mayor since 1907

Einstein once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

link?

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by mary

link?

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans....main&x=4837891

Scroll down and you will see the points in the articles. It's about halfway down the page, just under the picture of Paul Johnson protesting.

[mary]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans....main&x=4837891

Scroll down and you will see the points in the articles. It's about halfway down the page, just under the picture of Paul Johnson protesting.

Thanks. I was pretty sure you hadn't gathered that information on you own.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by mary

Thanks. I was pretty sure you hadn't gathered that information on you own.

You welcome.

[alexamenos]

the black man just can't catch a break in this country...

Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."

[mary]

I'm guessing there's a population parameter on those data...and that there's a very strong correlation between population density and poverty.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm guessing there's a population parameter on those data...and that there's a very strong correlation between population density and poverty.

Unfortunately, I do not have all the data, but your point is well taken and very plausible.

Do you find a possible correlation between the areas and the leadership at the Mayor of those cities?

It is rather interesting to find the 10 worst all have 10 Mayors who are Democrat and then to find out the historical time frame that the Democrats have been in charge of those cities.

Don't get me wrong, I know without a doubt that the Republicans have theri fair share of incompetence as a party and within their own individuals using the "R" under their name. But I find it interesting to see this list and honestly I was surprised NOT to see an "R" represented in those cities.

Perhaps the Republicans should truly campaign on Change and Hope in these 10 cities?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Perhaps the Republicans should truly campaign on Change and Hope in these 10 cities?

Well, "free beer" also goes a long way in bringing about meaningful change...

It's a brave new world - we need brave new ideas!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Unfortunately, I do not have all the data, but your point is well taken and very plausible.

Do you find a possible correlation between the areas and the leadership at the Mayor of those cities?

It is rather interesting to find the 10 worst all have 10 Mayors who are Democrat and then to find out the historical time frame that the Democrats have been in charge of those cities.

Don't get me wrong, I know without a doubt that the Republicans have theri fair share of incompetence as a party and within their own individuals using the "R" under their name. But I find it interesting to see this list and honestly I was surprised NOT to see an "R" represented in those cities.

Perhaps the Republicans should truly campaign on Change and Hope in these 10 cities?

this could easily be a bit of correlation and causation type confusion.

perhaps for whatever reason cities with high incidents of poverty find the democratic pitch more palatable??? The inference then is not that dem mayors and policies are the cause of poverty, but instead an inadequate response.

likewise, suppose we saw some stats where the 10 richest cities were traditionally governed by republicans. So what? This could easily mean nothing other than where people are already quite content, they prefer that the government not interfere, not that the government's actions (or lackthereof) were the cause of the city's riches.

hence,

in poor cities, people say "please government do more"
in rich cities, people say "please government do less"

we still haven't accounted for what caused the respective cities to be rich or poor in the first place.


n'est ce pas?

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

this could easily be a bit of correlation and causation type confusion.

perhaps for whatever reason cities with high incidents of poverty find the democratic pitch more palatable??? The inference then is not that dem mayors and policies are the cause of poverty, but instead an inadequate response.

likewise, suppose we saw some stats where the 10 richest cities were traditionally governed by republicans. So what? This could easily mean nothing other than where people are already quite content, they prefer that the government not interfere, not that the government's actions (or lackthereof) were the cause of the city's riches.

hence,

in poor cities, people say "please government do more"
in rich cities, people say "please government do less"

we still haven't accounted for what caused the respective cities to be rich or poor in the first place.


n'est ce pas?

I can see the correlations and understand your point of poor/rich cities. I especially like your point that this perhaps is not the root cause of the cities, but rather an inadequate response...thus what I read into this is a need for change.

Perhaps after years of inadequate response it is time for change? Is that not what the Democrats campaigned on for the National elections?

So if the mandate from this election is change, should we not alse see that mandate in these cities that have had continued inadequate response from Democratic leadership?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

I can see the correlations and understand your point of poor/rich cities. I especially like your point that this perhaps is not the root cause of the cities, but rather an inadequate response...thus what I read into this is a need for change.

Perhaps after years of inadequate response it is time for change? Is that not what the Democrats campaigned on for the National elections?

So if the mandate from this election is change, should we not alse see that mandate in these cities that have had continued inadequate response from Democratic leadership?

So, you've drawn the correlation that the Democrats are responsible for cities being poverty-stricken and that all people need to do to fix the problem is to stop voting for Democrats...

Could the Communist Party, Green Party, Labor Party, Libertarian Party or Free Beer Party (mine) fix their problems?


...or is this just another partisan tactic to garner support for the floundering Republican Party?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

this could easily be a bit of correlation and causation type confusion.

...
we still haven't accounted for what caused the respective cities to be rich or poor in the first place.


n'est ce pas?

I'm not speaking for 92b here (I don't know what he was thinking when he posted that list). But the Einstein quote, and asking whether mary sees a correlation don't imply that he's thinking in terms of causal inference.

The correlation is bad enough. Maybe the number of "Dem"s on that list is a complete coincidence (what are the odds of flipping 10 coins and getting heads every time?). Maybe the Dems have driven the cities to the bottom of the charts. Or maybe it's just that the Dem leaders don't have the answers, but the dem voters think they do, and have continued to think they do even though 80 years of history suggests they don't. The first possibility would be weird. Neither of the second two would speak well of the Dem leaders or of those who keep voting them in.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Also - could someone do away with daylight savings???

Who does it serve? How many millions of dollars do we lose each year due to workers trying to adjust their sleep schedules???


I think this needs to be the #1 priority for our government above all else - I think God would even forgive us for working on Sundays to get this problem solved!

And please, for the love of God and all that is sacred, please fix the situation with the quality of Highland Park water. It's an issue long overdue.....

[rabbitproof]

Could it be that Democratic run cities dont function well under a Republican federal government or state government?

I'm not saying that is the case but there are a bajillion factors out there. You're trying to bring some knowledge that sounds like: "this team will be the NBA champion because it is from the Western conference."

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Could it be that Democratic run cities dont function well under a Republican federal government or state government?

I'm not saying that is the case but there are a bajillion factors out there. You're trying to bring some knowledge that sounds like: "this team will be the NBA champion because it is from the Western conference."

You could answer that question by checking how those cities faired under democratic fed and state governments.

And ah, sports metaphors. . .
If the 10 worst teams in the NBA were all Eastern Conference teams, wouldn't you conclude that the eastern conference sucks . More directly, if Cuban announced that he was going to start taking money from Dirk's salary and giving it to James Singleton in order to make things fair, we'd all say he's an idiot and we'd run him out of town.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If the 10 worst teams in the NBA were all Eastern Conference teams, wouldn't you conclude that the eastern conference sucks .

What if the 5 best teams are also in the Eastern Conference?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Underdog

What if the 5 best teams are also in the Eastern Conference?

I'd say that the eastern conference is associated with ranking higher than normal and with ranking lower than normal, but not with ranking in the middle.