molson_golden2002 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 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. So, you think he's going to just abandon his strategy, if it gets him elected, to institute "change"? Right, keep dreamin'. 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. wtf 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). I think you are right about Obama's problems, but I think you are overlooking McCains. Is he really seen as a moderate? Perhaps by the far right like Wacka and such, but he has tried very hard to appease and hold onto those people and it will be hard for him to appear "moderate" as the election approaches. And then there is IRAQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Obama has played a smart, great game thus far. And really there has been many attacks against him. It's one thing to draw comparisons between candidates, it's another to attack or use scare tactics. I can't wait for McCain to start that - he's such an easy target for political pieces. I think he is going to abandon his strategy of promoting change if it gets him elected? No. National Polls, I too have stated earlier they mean jack sh1t. McCain could be up 20 points right now and it wouldn't mean anything. McCain could be up 20 points in certain states and it wouldn't matter. Messaging will be fine tuned and strategies will come about once he gets the nod. I do not see Obama losing the Independent vote. No way. If anything he has proved that he can gain new voters and independents through this part of the cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 How's Obama going to attract those votes in the general election when he can't even do it in the primary? One might ask how is Hillary going to beat McCain when she couldn't even beat Obama, who (along with his wife) seemingly went out of his way to hand her the nomination. The answer is, she can't, and the reason she can't is because even if she did get the super delegates, she'd run yet another dart-throwing, sniper-dodging, staff-firing crusade and people will see her for what she is: a power hungry, lying, insincere, sniveling, incompetent public servant who wants to be president to extend her husband's stay in purgatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 I think you are right about Obama's problems, but I think you are overlooking McCains. Is he really seen as a moderate? Perhaps by the far right like Wacka and such, but he has tried very hard to appease and hold onto those people and it will be hard for him to appear "moderate" as the election approaches. And then there is IRAQ The polls that I have seen suggest that Obama and McCain both appeal to independents. I suspect that leaners will likely break as normal again this year, which would give the Democrats a huge advantage (party ID polling right now sits at around 51%-38%). The problem scenario for Obama, though, is that Democrats normally have a very high defection rate, and McCain's appeal to Clinton supporters could influence this. Typically, the Dems see about an 11% defection rate, which has escalated in some elections. Conservative Democrats are likely to vote only around 70-30 in favor of Obama, a number which really, really helps McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 How so? 13% of the population wasn't the majority the last time I looked. It's racist when 90% of one racial group votes for one candidate because they are the same race. They are a minority because they represent a smaller portion of the populace...That's just the facts. I agree that the policy should be inclusive of everyone but you cannot cater to the minority. They do that here in the Northern Territory wih the Aboriginal population....People are getting more racist by the day because of policies designed to cater to the Aborigines. It's one of the reasons I'm moving back to the USA. Black voters are not voting for Obama just because he's black. Obama gets votes based on more than race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 And a Democrat named LBJ pushed it through. Whats your point? No, the Republicans pushed it through. The % of Republicans voting for the Civil Rights laws wes higher than the % of dems voting for it. Two of teh biggest dems, Gore and Byrd filibustered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 No, the Republicans pushed it through. The % of Republicans voting for the Civil Rights laws wes higher than the % of dems voting for it. Two of teh biggest dems, Gore and Byrd filibustered it. The Republican party had a lot of liberals in it back then, just like the Democrats had a lot of segregationists. The parties have realigned since then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 No, the Republicans pushed it through. The % of Republicans voting for the Civil Rights laws wes higher than the % of dems voting for it. Two of teh biggest dems, Gore and Byrd filibustered it. Oh yeah, I forgot, LBJ had nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Black voters are not voting for Obama just because he's black. Obama gets votes based on more than race. True, it's because he's a black Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The Republican party had a lot of liberals in it back then, just like the Democrats had a lot of segregationists. The parties have realigned since then Yeah, the dems have gotten a lot more racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 As Gwen Ifill so aptly put on Charlie Rose last night, "White is a race, too." It is HIGHLY likely that there will be far more people in the general election that will vote for McCain because he is white than vote for Obama because he is black. Sad, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 True, it's because he's a black Democrat. Just like Hillary is gaining the female democrats... well at least the old ones. Big deal. Bottom line is that she is done. She should find a way to back out gracefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 As Gwen Ifill so aptly put on Charlie Rose last night, "White is a race, too." It is HIGHLY likely that there will be far more people in the general election that will vote for McCain because he is white than vote for Obama because he is black. Sad, but true. Ever study political psychology? Being black is much less of a hindrance than being a woman.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 Wow! I got a three pager going! I will get right to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 Republicans are racist? So are Dems... I guess you haven't been reading my posts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 Racism is not new to "liberal" dem voters. Not at all. Remember when Carl McCall ran for Governor of NY? Look at those numbers and please tell me how many white votes you think he got in the hotbed of pseudo-liberalism? Maybe AAs have to vote for other AAs because white liberals will not. Phoney Libs should clean up their own house and then worry about repubs being racist. There are plenty of white Obama liberal that will vote for him. Again, I am worried about Dems being racist, which I know isn't new... It is just coming to a head and should be called out! My point is that the rascist Dems will do anything to diassociate themselves from an AA dem, even if that Dem has all their qualities and ideals... Those Dems will do anthing, even jump to a group which doesn't directly share their ideals. All because of one's color? Or radical priest? Or wife's "forelorn" comment? Just imagine if Obama was Roman Catholic, white, and Irish... Most would be annoiting him as the next JFK... Even if he had a Rev. Wright type ties to say radical IRA. I am most perplexed with that group of Dems. Don't get me wrong Bill... I am calling out the Dems the most here... I couldn't help but get a Republican bash in there (they are still worse... ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 You also forgot to mention that Barack is well liked among independents and even some Republicans. Also, if Barack has no chance then why is there such a push within the GOP to hope/support Hillary? They would love to face her instead of Barack. I think it is a rouse. And she does have some cracks in her armor... Bill's the biggest and easiest liability. You always want to fight a foe YOU KNOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 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. Who created the perilous times?... Of course they have alwys been perilous... Very mush so the last 5 years. And now the ecomomy... Fuel is going through the roof never to come down again... Everybody wil feel the pinch eventually... Costs double now to keep people safer. Time to tack not play it safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 And along with Pennsylvania, that is the main reason why superdelegates should pick the stronger candidate to win the electoral college; Hillary. No. Even if McCain does get in. You can't play it to the middle with a middle Dem... Nothing wil ever change. Things are out of balance now... You need an opposite and equal reaction. Your suggestion reeks of moving to ONE party... Not to more than three. If we have to suffer with another 4 years of Republicans so be, it will continue to tip the balance in a very unstable way where social unrest will likely have to be dealt with. Follow? Probably not. There is always a day of reckoning and thinigs have to be strongly tipped to the left to balance things out. You can either pay me now... Or you can alway pay me later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 And a Democrat named LBJ pushed it through. Whats your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts