Is Race HURTING Obama?

[molson_golden2002]

in terms of the presidential election i don't see how barak can beat mccain.

 

as it always does it will all come down to florida and ohio. barak is weak in both of these places. mccain is a war hero and barak is a young charmer thin on the big issues. couple that with how weak barak was vs clinton in those states and how his wife will hurt his image as a true american.

 

barak is very very strong with blacks, young urban voters, college kids, and the odd issues candidate. those are all people the republicans didn't have a shot with in the first place. i could see him getting a huge turnout in mass, ca, wisconsin, but losing ohio, florida, and thus the election.

If Obama can paint McCain as George Bush's clone then he has a good chance of winning. McCain seems to be doing his best to help out with that

[pBills]

I do love the experience card. Always makes me laugh. In regards to the one link, the former pastor is quickly becoming a non-story. His poor debates... is debatable. I believe that he has really only had maybe 2 bad debates out of what 21? Lack of energy... what do they expect? These campaigns have been going on at a feverish pace for so long. McCain has had the luxury (until last night) of taking an easier, more relaxed schedule all the while having his campaign sharpen their tools. Definitely not good for the Dems.

 

 

"The sense inside many GOP camps has long been that Obama, being somewhat inexperienced, would be easier to beat than Clinton and her campaign machine. But Obama's fumbling recently with the comments from his former pastor, his poor debate performances, and what one Republican pollster called his "lack of energy and appearances" on the campaign trail now make him an even more attractive foe for McCain."

[Chilly]

If Obama can paint McCain as George Bush's clone then he has a good chance of winning. McCain seems to be doing his best to help out with that

 

Hell, they were so successful running against Bush in 04, they might as well try again eh?

 

I do love the experience card. Always makes me laugh.

 

Mmmhmm. Do you understand why this is an issue for him in an election that could easily turn generational, or does it just make you laugh?

 

In regards to the one link, the former pastor is quickly becoming a non-story.

 

Mmmhmm, keep thinking that. It'll be brought up some more in the fall.

 

His poor debates... is debatable. I believe that he has really only had maybe 2 bad debates out of what 21?

 

I don't like either of them, but Obama has gotten his ass kicked in debates recently.

 

Lack of energy... what do they expect? These campaigns have been going on at a feverish pace for so long.

 

Yet Clinton seems fine. Funny, huh?

 

Again: look at the polls, look at the exit polls, look at the demographics in the swing states. Clinton is the tougher candidate.

[pBills]

Yes. McCain and Hillary both have a ton of experience. Yet with all of that experience they still make poor decisions. What do they blame those decisions on? Plus, Hillary states everything she has done since college as experience for the White House. Can that really be true?

 

Of course the Pastor will be brought up at some point by McCain. Really is a non-story now.

 

Regarding the debates - I believe Obama's campaign put themselves into a little bit of a pinch by not allowing themselves to go on the extreme attack like Hillary did. I do believe that once he has a partner in this the running mate will be able to take a bit of a harder stance all the while Obama will be leading/speaking of change in politics. I still wouldn't say ass kicked though. She did well, no doubt. But it was all negative and many people were getting annoyed because the negative hits were more predominate with her than the "real issues".

 

Energy....

 

Hillary; Tired at 11pm, Ready at 3am?

"Last week, however, Clinton seemed to suggest that older voters might be more absent-minded than wise. Defending Hillary Clinton’s faulty recollection of landing under sniper fire during a 1996 humanitarian visit to Bosnia, the former president said of her critics, “When they’re 60, they’ll forget something when they’re tired at 11 o’clock at night, too.” - Boston Globe

 

Polls... they can and have changed daily.

[Chilly]

Yes. McCain and Hillary both have a ton of experience. Yet with all of that experience they still make poor decisions. What do they blame those decisions on? Plus, Hillary states everything she has done since college as experience for the White House. Can that really be true?

 

Perception.

 

Of course the Pastor will be brought up at some point by McCain. Really is a non-story now.

 

If it was a non-story, it obviously wouldn't be brought up in the general election and wouldn't have had any impact.

 

Regarding the debates - I believe Obama's campaign put themselves into a little bit of a pinch by not allowing themselves to go on the extreme attack like Hillary did. I do believe that once he has a partner in this the running mate will be able to take a bit of a harder stance all the while Obama will be leading/speaking of change in politics. I still wouldn't say ass kicked though. She did well, no doubt. But it was all negative and many people were getting annoyed because the negative hits were more predominate with her than the "real issues".

 

Good God, how do you Obama supporters not see how hypocritical this sh-- is?

 

Energy....

 

Hillary; Tired at 11pm, Ready at 3am?

"Last week, however, Clinton seemed to suggest that older voters might be more absent-minded than wise. Defending Hillary Clinton’s faulty recollection of landing under sniper fire during a 1996 humanitarian visit to Bosnia, the former president said of her critics, “When they’re 60, they’ll forget something when they’re tired at 11 o’clock at night, too.” - Boston Globe

 

Oh boy, quoting something she made up as an excuse, without actually talking about campaign stops. Great refute.

 

Polls... they can and have changed daily.

 

Exit polls and demographics don't, and its nearly impossible for any candidate to change their coalition in just a couple months, meaning: the important states for the general election haven't changed much since this whole thing started.

[colin]

i don't personally care who the president is -- i hope they don't suck too much but whatever.

 

i do care about my money tho, and i've put my money on mccain. ohio and florida, that's where this comes down to. obama is not a man for those states.

[beausox]

The question is not about you... I am questioning covert racism amongst the Dems themselves... Particularly older, poorer and rural Dems.

 

They will flock right to the overt rascist Republicans.

 

As opposed to covert racist Democrats? ...which I say rhetorically... the emphasis should be on racists not the party. If history is any guide one would find that Democrats opposed Civil Rights and Republicans were needed to pass legislation in 50's and 60's.

I oppose Obama because he is all stlye and no substance. I also oppose Hillary though, mirabile dictu, she is by far the better choice of the two.

I support McCain even though I agree with him only 70% of the time it is a far safer choice in perilous times.

[pBills]

i don't personally care who the president is -- i hope they don't suck too much but whatever.

 

i do care about my money tho, and i've put my money on mccain. ohio and florida, that's where this comes down to. obama is not a man for those states.

 

 

 

All depends on how long Hillary stays in this... and who is running mate is.

[PastaJoe]

in terms of the presidential election i don't see how barak can beat mccain.

 

as it always does it will all come down to florida and ohio. barak is weak in both of these places. mccain is a war hero and barak is a young charmer thin on the big issues. couple that with how weak barak was vs clinton in those states and how his wife will hurt his image as a true american.

 

barak is very very strong with blacks, young urban voters, college kids, and the odd issues candidate. those are all people the republicans didn't have a shot with in the first place. i could see him getting a huge turnout in mass, ca, wisconsin, but losing ohio, florida, and thus the election.

 

And along with Pennsylvania, that is the main reason why superdelegates should pick the stronger candidate to win the electoral college; Hillary.

[Wacka]

As opposed to covert racist Democrats? ...which I say rhetorically... the emphasis should be on racists not the party. If history is any guide one would find that Democrats opposed Civil Rights and Republicans were needed to pass legislation in 50's and 60's.

I oppose Obama because he is all stlye and no substance. I also oppose Hillary though, mirabile dictu, she is by far the better choice of the two.

I support McCain even though I agree with him only 70% of the time it is a far safer choice in perilous times.

 

 

Bingo! Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd (KKK-WV) filibustered the Civil ights legislation in the 60s.

 

Obama is a socialist. He was rated the MOST LIBERAL senator . That is why is dislike him.

[Chilly]

Bingo! Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd (KKK-WV) filibustered the Civil ights legislation in the 60s.

 

And a Democrat named LBJ pushed it through. Whats your point?

[pBills]

Perception.

 

If it was a non-story, it obviously wouldn't be brought up in the general election and wouldn't have had any impact.

 

Good God, how do you Obama supporters not see how hypocritical this sh-- is?

 

Oh boy, quoting something she made up as an excuse, without actually talking about campaign stops. Great refute.

 

Exit polls and demographics don't, and its nearly impossible for any candidate to change their coalition in just a couple months, meaning: the important states for the general election haven't changed much since this whole thing started.

 

 

 

It's quickly becoming a non-story... once Obama distances himself from this it's done. I say that McCain will bring it up because he has to. Just another issue to attack on or to divert attention from something else.

 

Of course it's hypocritical... that unfortunately is politics. Plus, I would imagine that since both candidates have stated they do not intend to go extremely negative neither will attack as harsh as Hillary has.

 

You mentioned that the Clinton campaign seems fine and is not tired. I simply threw out one of her supposed to funny excuses. What would you like for me to say about her campaign stops... that she has a ton of energy? Or that all of them are full energy whether it be Hillary, Bill or that dud Chelsea? Fact is that they are not full of energy. I have been to four on the West Coast for work - not very exciting. The crowd excited, full of energy - yes. The person on the stage. Not so much.

[molson_golden2002]

Hell, they were so successful running against Bush in 04, they might as well try again eh?

 

 

 

Mmmhmm. Do you understand why this is an issue for him in an election that could easily turn generational, or does it just make you laugh?

 

 

 

Mmmhmm, keep thinking that. It'll be brought up some more in the fall.

 

 

 

I don't like either of them, but Obama has gotten his ass kicked in debates recently.

 

 

 

Yet Clinton seems fine. Funny, huh?

 

Again: look at the polls, look at the exit polls, look at the demographics in the swing states. Clinton is the tougher candidate.

So are you predicting McCain wins? And, this isn't '04, it's '08, things are very different

[pBills]

And along with Pennsylvania, that is the main reason why superdelegates should pick the stronger candidate to win the electoral college; Hillary.

 

 

How can one say she is the stronger candidate when she isn't even the leader in her own party.

[Chilly]

It's quickly becoming a non-story... once Obama distances himself from this it's done. I say that McCain will bring it up because he has to. Just another issue to attack on or to divert attention from something else.

 

When it gets brought up again, it will have an effect, especially if McCain parallels that "great" race speech with Obama's follow up.

 

Of course it's hypocritical... that unfortunately is politics. Plus, I would imagine that since both candidates have stated they do not intend to go extremely negative neither will attack as harsh as Hillary has.

 

So, do you see how silly Obama's message is yet?

 

You mentioned that the Clinton campaign seems fine and is not tired. I simply threw out one of her supposed to funny excuses. What would you like for me to say about her campaign stops... that she has a ton of energy? Or that all of them are full energy whether it be Hillary, Bill or that dud Chelsea? Fact is that they are not full of energy. I have been to four on the West Coast for work - not very exciting. The crowd excited, full of energy - yes. The person on the stage. Not so much.

 

Again, perception.

 

Also, let me repeat:

Exit polls and demographics don't, and its nearly impossible for any candidate to change their coalition in just a couple months, meaning: the important states for the general election haven't changed much since this whole thing started.

[pBills]

You believe it will have an effect. May be true. May not. Most people will/should think that they have heard it all before - enough, get on to some real issues.

 

Obama's message of hope, change in DC is silly? A lot of people would love change in DC, change in politics. However, one must be smart enough to know that unfortunately games will be played during the course of an election.

 

Energy - fine we'll agree to disagree on that one.

 

Polls... wasn't both Obama and Hillary above McCain at one point, maybe about a month ago? Of course the important states for the general election do not change. However, just like everything else in politics that is debatable. Hillary has made many statements about Obama not being able to win the big states... however if Gore could have pulled the smaller states he may have been President. There is no doubt that McCain will do well in Florida. Ohio, I believe when the economy is the biggest issue - he will not fair so well. After all isn't he the one that said...

 

 

In fact, on numerous occasions over the course of the campaign, McCain has volunteered that he is unsatisfied with his lack of knowledge about aspects of economics.

 

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated," McCain told the Wall Street Journal in late November.

 

In December he said, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,"...

 

 

On at least one occasion, McCain has raised the matter himself. On Nov. 10, while traveling through New Hampshire on his Straight Talk Express bus, McCain was asked what he would seek in a vice presidential candidate if nominated.

 

After mentioning the ability of a potential running mate to replace the president, McCain said, "You also look for people who maybe have talents you don't, or experience or knowledge you don't, as well."

 

"What are those qualities that you don't - that you wouldn't mind complementing?" asked David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times.

 

McCain paused. "Uh, maybe I shouldn't say this, but, somebody who's really well grounded in economics," he said.

 

"I think I understand the fundamentals, I talk to people all the time on economics - it's obviously a vital part of America's future," McCain continued. "But I know there are some people who have literally immersed themselves on issues of economics, how Congress works on it, the tax code, that sort of thing. I would look for that kind of talent not in a vice president but in close advisers."

 

"They are complicated," McCain said of economic issues, "and I freely admit I am not an economist."

[PastaJoe]

How can one say she is the stronger candidate when she isn't even the leader in her own party.

 

She's the stronger general election candidate. She attracts more of the moderates and Reagan Democrats that may otherwise vote for McCain, has consistantly won more white votes than Obama since February, and has won more votes in the critical swing states. How's Obama going to attract those votes in the general election when he can't even do it in the primary? I doubt many black voters are going to vote for McCain.

[molson_golden2002]

She's the stronger general election candidate. She attracts more of the moderates and Reagan Democrats that may otherwise vote for McCain, has consistantly won more white votes than Obama since February, and has won more votes in the critical swing states. How's Obama going to attract those votes in the general election when he can't even do it in the primary? I doubt many black voters are going to vote for McCain.

Because they are Democrats and they won't have to choose between two Democrats, they will choose between a real good Democrat and a George Bush Republican. At least that is what the argument should be set forth as by the Democrats. McCain may take those voters, I admit, but its not a given

[pBills]

Even hear of the term "Obamican"?? Obama is also drawing in more independents, more newly registered voters.

 

I believe that once he receives the nod (if she would finally step out gracefully) the party will follow in behind him. Depending on who the VP candidate would be those areas you are worried about reaching could be pulled in via that spot.

 

She has no viable way to take the nod unless the super delegates give it to her. If even she won with 60% of the vote the rest of the way and received 60% of the remaining super delegates she would still trail him by 57 delegates and Obama would be over the top.

[Chilly]

You believe it will have an effect. May be true. May not. Most people will/should think that they have heard it all before - enough, get on to some real issues.

 

See, thats the funny thing about Obama's game, he tries to paint anything that is negative toward him as a non-real issue, and people eat it up.

 

Obama's message of hope, change in DC is silly? A lot of people would love change in DC, change in politics. However, one must be smart enough to know that unfortunately games will be played during the course of an election.

 

So, you think he's going to just abandon his strategy, if it gets him elected, to institute "change"? Right, keep dreamin'.

 

Polls... wasn't both Obama and Hillary above McCain at one point, maybe about a month ago?

 

As I've mentioned before, "National" Election polls mean jack sh--. Obama has built a coalition that is going to be hard for him to reverse in the course of a couple of months, and he has moved further left, not further toward the middle. This is a *bad* sign for the general election.

 

Of course the important states for the general election do not change. However, just like everything else in politics that is debatable.

 

wtf

 

Hillary has made many statements about Obama not being able to win the big states... however if Gore could have pulled the smaller states he may have been President. There is no doubt that McCain will do well in Florida. Ohio, I believe when the economy is the biggest issue - he will not fair so well. After all isn't he the one that said...

 

Obama would have to win states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, states which have all broke Republican over the last 10 elections outside of Bill Clinton. Given that Obama has now positioned himself to the far left (which McCain still being considered relatively independent), Obama is losing the independent vote.

 

Obama has been heavily losing people who consider themselves moderate or independent recently to Clinton, a trend which is NOT promising for Obama.

 

Its funny you mention the economy, as Obama is horribly weak on the economy, just like McCain (as you pointed out).