[pepsionice]

In this case here, Nunn was safely around seven points ahead a month ago, with money still left to spend. If Nunn loses by more than three points, it’ll really be a major shock. But I would agree, if Georgia goes Republican....it’s more than a marginal win across the US.

[Bettyprob]

If Nunn loses by more than three points

Nunn is down four points in NBC's final poll of the race.

[Gaffer]

She’s definitely losing. The Democrats would not be exsanguinating themselves over those fake 40,000 NEW registrations they say Kemp lost if she weren’t.

[okie01]

A Democrat could conceivably win by then with just 23 percent of the white vote — about what John Kerry received in 2004.

Consider the ramifications of this statement:

1. In winning, a Democrat candidate can receive only a sliver of support from the dominant majority group.

2. In winning, a Democrat candidate must receive virtually unanimous support from a particular minority.

Isn't this an unhealthy pattern in a democratic society? Does it not mean that the elected representative is automatically NOT representative of his constituents. Does it not theoretically result in the representative essentially being dependent upon and subservient to a minority of his constituents? Is it not, in fact, a denial of "diversity"?

Why do the deep thinkers at the New York Times always manage to overlook this aspect of Democrat electoral strategy (i.e., necessity)?