US Elections 2008

[Xellos-_^]

With the recent controversy in regard to Obama's pastor as one example. i believed that if Obama wins the democratic nomination he will lose the general election to McCain.

Another reason i don't think Obama will beat McCain is that the US won't vote for a Blackman for President (and yes i know his mother is white).

i found this on youtube, it is a Political ad form 2006 on a senate race in Tennese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UZBZ...eature=related

[bayoab]

Clinton has taken PA with a 10 point margin after doing considerably better among undecideds than Obama. (60/40).
She has gained almost nothing except cut the overall popular vote lead by a 1/3rd... for now.

Some anti-spin tracking:

• Obama did slightly worse than expected as most tracking polls had him around a 7-9 point difference. [7(+/-8) or 6-12 depending on where you read.]
• Obama started 6 weeks ago at a 20+ point disadvantage and never was ahead. He did reach statistical dead heat in some polls, but was still expected to lose.
• Obama outspent Clinton 4:1. However, Obama had the 4 to spend while Clinton was in the red. Also, Clinton had the democratic machine working for her.
• Clinton now must win North Carolina to have even a prayer of taking the lead in popular vote count. She needs to win every contest 69-31 to win with delegates.

Some bad exit polls for the democratic party:
47% of clinton voters will not vote for obama in the general election.
29% of obama voters will not vote for clinton in the general election.
Of these two numbers, a large number of Clinton voters will break for McCain.

The democratic party is really getting in danger of being in real trouble come August.

And for some amusement, the fark headline for this:

Hillary sees her shadow in Pennsylvania. We can expect six more weeks of tired, pathetic campaigning.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

With the recent controversy in regard to Obama's pastor as one example. i believed that if Obama wins the democratic nomination he will lose the general election to McCain.

News moves too fast... that's already been left behind.

Another reason i don't think Obama will beat McCain is that the US won't vote for a Blackman for President (and yes i know his mother is white).

I sincerely think you're wrong on that one. There's small percentage for whom that is true, of course. With all of McCain's baggage and faux pas - it would certainly be telling if he does win.

[KholdStare]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Another reason i don't think Obama will beat McCain is that the US won't vote for a Blackman for President (and yes i know his mother is white).

I agree with you, but not because Obama is black. It is because of some disturbing statistics right below your post:

Originally Posted by bayoab

47% of clinton voters will not vote for obama in the general election.

And yes, I'm very worried for the democratic party. For the people who support Obama, do you really think McCain is better than Clinton, and vice versa?

[Vexx]

Well.. personally I'd vote for an ashtray if the Dems ran it for President because I'm so annoyed at the thugs masquerading as Republicans -- they need a huge timeout.

I *really* don't understand any Clinton supporter that would sit out or "go McCain". That's just irrational freaking insanity of shooting yourself in the foot.

[Ice Climbers]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I *really* don't understand any Clinton supporter that would sit out or "go McCain". That's just irrational freaking insanity of shooting yourself in the foot.

Agreed, we had a discussion about this in our AP stats class once and we didnt understand why people would just go over to McCain because the ideology of Obama and Clinton are virtually the same except some minute differences.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Out of curiosity, what's wrong with McCain? I don't like the Republicans in general, but McCain seems like an ok guy. I, for one, prefer his straight talking to Obama's feel-good speeches.

As for the Democrats, I think they need to settle the tussle between Clinton and Obama as soon as possible. As much as I support Clinton over Obama, I am disappointed by the negative turn of Clinton's recent campaign. It does Obama more good than harm, I reckon.

[cyth]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Out of curiosity, what's wrong with McCain? I don't like the Republicans in general, but McCain seems like an ok guy. I, for one, prefer his straight talking to Obama's feel-good speeches.

Well, the fact that he plans to lead an administration following the footsteps of George W. Bush is the biggest issue for him. I doubt he can give the American people the same guarantee to change current policy as the democrats can.

But honestly, why would you want an "ok guy" running your country? You're not picking bowling partners after all.

[Vexx]

I guess I should say I do understand those supporters of Clinton or Obama who would sit out or cross and I have no respect for them at all. They're fools of the worst sort -- because the policy platforms of both Clinton and Obama are basically identical.

McCain is committed to carrying the Bush policies forward for 4 more years.... the rest of this rant is minor compared to that one.
He has demonstrated he can't keep the factions straight in his head about Iraq - an area he's *supposed* to have huge expertise. He has made mistake after mistake in discussing Iraq, way past the "brain fart" apology.
He has admitted no clue about economic issues, which he seems to consider "small stuff not to sweat" yet wants to make permanent the tax cuts during a very expensive military operation that should never have been retained.
He completely rolled over on the Geneva Convention issues -- it makes you wonder if anyone supporting him has any long-term memory.
No one apparently remembers a certain banking scandal he was immersed in....

I could dribble on.... but keep in mind I've been a registered Republican of the "old school" for decades ... but I dropped after Bush was elected a second time. We need a new party.... that doesn't have the "usual players" from the old party.

[bayoab]

Just another statistic from the exit polls to throw out:
20% of the people in the rural areas of PA said that race mattered in their vote vs 10% in the cities. In those 20% areas, 75% of them voted for Clinton.

Originally Posted by KholdStare

And yes, I'm very worried for the democratic party. For the people who support Obama, do you really think McCain is better than Clinton, and vice versa?

As someone who voted for Clinton and now hopes she loses the nomination to Obama, I will say that I consider McCain and Clinton two equal evils. I believe Clinton would do a better job in theory, but not in practice. The thought of voting for a third party is on the table if it is between these two.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I *really* don't understand any Clinton supporter that would sit out or "go McCain". That's just irrational freaking insanity of shooting yourself in the foot.

I can explain a few of the thought processes on this, having listened to pundits all day and having heard some of it from relatives.

One of them is that Clinton has repeatedly said that McCain would make a better president than Obama. Supposedly her supporters are really taking this to heart.

The second is that Clinton has a lot of Jewish backing. I found out recently that the more Zionistic Jews believe that Obama would be a disaster for Israel if elected and that McCain's policies would not be. (I heard this from one at dinner a few days ago.)

Third is part a Rovian theory and part truth. The Rovian theory part is that, since she cannot win legitimately, Clinton is trying to destroy the Dem ticket for this year without destroying her hopes for 2012 by weakening Obama in the primary and getting McCain elected. The truth part to this is there are women who believe that there should be a woman in the oval office now. And if not now, they should set it up so they can try again in 4 years. They really couldn't care when the race comes down to between two men and will likely sit it out or help set it up.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Toua

Well, the fact that he plans to lead an administration following the footsteps of George W. Bush is the biggest issue for him. I doubt he can give the American people the same guarantee to change current policy as the democrats can.

Unless the statistics have changed significantly, I thought McCain had trouble wooing conservative Republicans, which form the bedrock of Republican support. Particularly the religious Republicans in the Bible belt. I also thought it was pretty significant that most Americans feel that McCain has the strongest foreign policy credentials out of the three candidates.

In short, I find McCain to be a man of integrity well-suited for the role of a president that needs to be actively involved in foreign affairs. I'm not sure about what he can offer domestic policies though, especially with regards to the economy. That said, the best thing a president can do for an economy is to probably stay out of it.

[Quarkboy]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

That said, the best thing a president can do for an economy is to probably stay out of it.

(Cheap shot warning)
Well if that's all that's needed to fix the economy, McCain's perfect! He's been "Out of it" for years!

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Third is part a Rovian theory and part truth. The Rovian theory part is that, since she cannot win legitimately, Clinton is trying to destroy the Dem ticket for this year without destroying her hopes for 2012 by weakening Obama in the primary and getting McCain elected. The truth part to this is there are women who believe that there should be a woman in the oval office now. And if not now, they should set it up so they can try again in 4 years. They really couldn't care when the race comes down to between two men and will likely sit it out or help set it up.

While it seems logical on paper, there are a lot of things beyond anyone's control that could upset a plan like that. It seems a bit extreme even in Clinton had Rove himself in her employ. There's just to much to go wrong.

As for democrats saying they won't vote for the other candidate if they win, I doubt that will last. Once the general election rolls around and they start getting a better idea of McCain's policies on Iraq and the economy, the democratic candidate will probably start looking much more appealing. There isn't much difference between Clinton and Obama on those issues.

Let's not forget we don't know who McCain is going to pick as a running mate yet. If he picks someone from the far right to sure up support among conservatives, there go even more potential democratic votes he could have picked up. If he picks someone more moderate though, it is concievable that he'll be able to get a sizable minority of democrats to vote for him, enough to tip the election in his favor. It's probably still unlikely though.

In my opinion the real threat to the democratic party in the general election is if it's still close with neither candidate conceeding and the super delegates go against the popular vote and pick the one they think is more likely to win. The McCain campaign adds practically write themselves if that happens. It's probably unlikely, but it's still possible.

[Reckoner]

If I was able to vote I would sit out if Clinton lost the nomination because personally, I'm freaked out by Obama. Mccain, although I disagree with him on many policies, comes to me as someone I can respect a lot. It's not insanity really, I think the idea of Obama's campaign is what is insane. Getting all the states that would never go Democratic anyways and winning all these caucuses, while Clinton has won all the large states except Illinoise.

Obama is clearly not getting the elderly vote, which will be very important n Florida.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

If I was able to vote I would sit out if Clinton lost the nomination because personally, I'm freaked out by Obama.

Freaked out by Obama? Why is that?

I can respect all three candidates, but of the three only Obama seems to get the big picture - we want change. It's more than wanting change in our Iraq policies, change in oil prices, or any one thing. It's change in the overall direction of the government. For the past seven years (perhaps even before then) the government has increasingly been moving us toward the so-called "nanny state." Our privacy and freedoms are being devalued in the face of "terrorism" and government corruption isn't being held in check. What needs to be changed is the field of politics itself - politicians should be working for us and our interests, rather than their own. Even if Obama can't do it, he represents a point of singularity for all of us to express our dissatisfaction with the system that's supposed to represent us!

That isn't the only reason to vote for him, of course. I think it's a bit of an overlooked aspect.

[Vagrant0]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I guess I should say I do understand those supporters of Clinton or Obama who would sit out or cross and I have no respect for them at all. They're fools of the worst sort -- because the policy platforms of both Clinton and Obama are basically identical.

Not identical. There are significant differences in places such as the war in Iraq, health insurance, the educational system, and a few other policies that make me almost tempted to kill myself if Clinton is elected and actually follows through on some of those things. Yes, I'm that serious. It's not about not seeing health insurance as important, it's about not being able to afford health insurance (especially a mandated (forced) health insurance) when I'm unemployed (thank you dying economy) and spend most of what money I do have between school and gas (gas is actually getting to be more expensive). Forcing people to have to have some sort of minimal health coverage would break the bank for a good many people. An immediate withdrawl from Iraq "no matter the costs" will only result in losing the country to insurgent groups who will just go back to business as usual. So yeah, if the only option is to have either an unending war, or to run out of Iraq as fast as possible with our tail between our legs, it will only end up badly for everyone.

The problem with the campaign on the Democratic side is that there is too much of this petty "who said what", "who close to whichever candidate made what mistakes" stuff, and the issues aren't even being talked about. And rather than strengthen the party, their attacks against eachother only end up splitting the party. All this mess because someone just doesn't want to wake up, smell the coffee, and drop out of the race. So yes, I would rather die than have another Clinton as president. Frankly I don't think they have anyones interests in mind other than their own, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to make those interests happen.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That isn't the only reason to vote for him, of course. I think it's a bit of an overlooked aspect.

Overlooked? It's the cornerstone of the Obama Campaign.

Not that I mind; I'm pro-Obama anyway.

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Freaked out by Obama? Why is that?

I can respect all three candidates, but of the three only Obama seems to get the big picture - we want change. It's more than wanting change in our Iraq policies, change in oil prices, or any one thing. It's change in the overall direction of the government. For the past seven years (perhaps even before then) the government has increasingly been moving us toward the so-called "nanny state." Our privacy and freedoms are being devalued in the face of "terrorism" and government corruption isn't being held in check. What needs to be changed is the field of politics itself - politicians should be working for us and our interests, rather than their own. Even if Obama can't do it, he represents a point of singularity for all of us to express our dissatisfaction with the system that's supposed to represent us!

That isn't the only reason to vote for him, of course. I think it's a bit of an overlooked aspect.

change..change..blah blah blah.....Not going to happen.

[Xellos-_^]

All this mess because someone just doesn't want to wake up, smell the coffee, and drop out of the race

I want to point out that the presidential election is not base on popular vote but on electoral vote.

Most of the states Obama has been winning are red states. The majority of which he won't win in the General Election. Clinton has winning in the States that Democratic needs to win to win the general election.

Right now unless the issue with Florida and Michigan gets resolve sitting thier delegates as it is. Obama has real good chance of losing both states to the McCain over this issue of not counting thier delegates.

I *really* don't understand any Clinton supporter that would sit out or "go McCain". That's just irrational freaking insanity of shooting yourself in the foot.

A majority of Clinton's support tend to older and white. They are not as in tune with the whole change msg that Obama is going around yelling. Also a sizeable portion her support is also form Asians and as Asian i can say that we are quit racist toward african-american. They would feel a lot more comfortable voting for McCain then a black man.

Freaked out by Obama? Why is that?

for me it is not so much Obama that is freaking me out but his supporters. His biggest supporters are left-wingnuts of Dems. Those guys scares me as much as the neo-con of the rep.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Vagrant0

The problem with the campaign on the Democratic side is that there is too much of this petty "who said what", "who close to whichever candidate made what mistakes" stuff, and the issues aren't even being talked about.

This is how politics has been for years. It doesn't matter what the person actually stands for, just what they are caught saying. The main stream media has been running "sound bite politics" and making americans believe that is all that matters.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Most of the states Obama has been winning are red states. The majority of which he won't win in the General Election. Clinton has winning in the States that Democratic needs to win to win the general election.

This is applying a set of logic and then making then same error in the reverse direction.
D1>D2 => R>D1 and R>D2 (when traditionally R>D)
D2>D1 => D2>R and R>D1 (when traditionally D>R)"
I have bolded both of the logical errors. You cannot conclude that anything about R and D1,D2 by comparing D1 and D2.
This is the question of "Do you prefer empire or macintosh apples?" Not "Do you prefer apples or oranges?" You cannot conclude people's preferences between apples and oranges from asking what kind of apple they want.

Right now unless the issue with Florida and Michigan gets resolve sitting thier delegates as it is. Obama has real good chance of losing both states to the McCain over this issue of not counting thier delegates.

This isn't Obama's problem. This is the DNC and the state DNC's problem. They are the ones who decided to be stupid and not do anything about it. Obama and Clinton have both proposed solutions.

Edit: Democrats should take Michigan no matter who they run. However, Clinton is in even more danger against McCain in Michigan. "She originally said she wasn't going to count you. She only decided to count you because she won here. Look at all the other states she discounted because she lost. Do you really want someone who only supports you when it is favorable to them?"