I really see the MI primary as the more critical revote, due to the names on the ballot being missing. In the case of Florida, I think a lot of people (not necessarily the Floridians) might find it fair to them being seated on a 1/2 basis. MI and FL really are separate situations (apart from Hillary "winning" both.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, sure, if McCain dies or something.
Or pulls an Elliot Spitzer.
What would happen at that point is that Romney would unsuspend his campaign and just try and choke down the fact that he endorsed McCain. All of McCain's delegates would be freed up, and the convention would be extremely interesting.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would certainly fall within "or something." I guess one would hope those things get shaken out, but I remember Gary Hart as well.
I found this quite interesting, regarding the "dream ticket":
quote:Some Democrats suggest Clinton's tactics have already sabotaged one way to reconcile the two camps. "Take it from me, that won't be the ticket," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday about Clinton and Obama in any configuration. Clinton "has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Sen. McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama," she told New England Cable Network earlier in the week.
posted
Yes it would. (Edit: Be extremely interesting. This was supposed to be right after Lisa's post.) I want to write a letter to his campaign: "Dear Senator McCain, please drop out of the race 2 days before the Republican convention. It's nothing personal, and it's not that I think you'd be that bad of a president. You see, I live in the twin cities and I just think the convention would be a lot more entertaining this way. Thanks!"
posted
If Clinton gets the nomination then we'd have the Republican Candidate that the Democrats want, and the Democratic Candidate that the Republicans want.
McCain is not the conservative demon some of the others were, nor the big biz bought boy, so Democrats could handle him as leader.
Clinton is so decisive that some Republicans want her to win to give them something to beat next time, or possibly this time.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clinton is so decisive that some Republicans want her to win to give them something to beat next time, or possibly this time.
I don't know any republicans who want her to win so she can be beaten in 2012. Some may want her nominated because they assume McCain can beat her. I don't think that's very smart, personally, because if she were to make a comeback on Obama, she'll go into the general with momentum.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've just run electoral college numbers for McCain v. Clinton and McCain v. Obama. Ohio is fairly tight for both races, and it's really the wild card. You get some oddities, like Pennsylvania at the moment is swinging to McCain in either race, New Jersey is very tight for McCain and Obama. But mostly, it would probably be McCain over Clinton 287 to 251 and Obama over McCain 283 over 255.
But I'm not very comfortable with this, because Clinton would only have to swing Ohio to win (for all her talk about Pennsylvania.) That's why I think this Red Rover strategy is an enormous mistake.
posted
I disagree with a few states on your spreadsheet there pooka. I'll try to find it later, but there was an electoral map made from recent polling data in all 50 states. 18,000 people I think were interviewed to make it. I'm not sure I agree with all the results from it, but it's drastically different than any guess I've seen. I think it was over on Ornery, I'll find it when I get home from work tonight.
Other than that, off the top of my head, I think VA, MO and SC could all go Democratic for Obama, and VA could go Democratic for Clinton. MO maybe for Clinton too, it's hard to say. You might be taking some of those states as givens that aren't.
If you wouldn't mind, I'll do a more analytical look at it when I get home from work.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oy. Pretty soon none of them will have any staff left. On the one hand, I guess it's important for them to reject these people or else it looks like tacit approval, but on the other hand, geez, can anyone have an opinion of their own?
Anywho, here you go pooka, the electoral college polls:
Either way the Democrats win, with these polls, but with totally different outcomes.
About your spreadsheets, I don't think Obama will take Arkansas, but I think Clinton would. I think Obama could take Colorado. Florida is up in the air, but I can see it leaning to McCain. I think Iowa is up in the air, it's a big swing state, I wouldn't give it to either of them yet. Missouri could go either way I think, especially with them election a Democrat to the Senate in 2006. North Carolina is likely going to stay Republican, but Obama could steal it away, maybe. Doubtful though. Nebraska splits their votes proportionally. There's no way McCain is taking all 5 from Obama. Pennsylvania I'd give the edge to Obama, but it's razor thin. I'd say almost as thin as Ohio. I'd also consider moving South Carolina to the Obama column. And Virginia I would definitely move to the Obama column. Most of the ones I think should be moved are really just uber swing states this year. They are going to go either way, and it's impossible to say who'll get them NOW, we have to wait and see, but any one of them could go either way.
I'll skip Clinton's because I just don't see her getting the nomination, even with a revote.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arkansas is one that I realized I didn't set right as I was driving home, and you're probably right about Colorado.
However, I detected a pattern of bias in Survey USA's work yesterday. Exhibit A Do you see where they are the only poll to find Clinton winning over McCain, and the margins involved? I didn't see such bizarre indicators elsewhere, but I definitely think their methodology must favor Clinton, albeit inadvertently.
I based my guesses off historical alignments (as in, the state has gone for a part in 3 or more of the last 4 election cycles) or based on information from pollster (which is limited). I'll move the votes in Virginia if there is data available, but I'm not aware of why it should go for Obama in the general.
Now 5 points is nothing like a comfortable lead, and we've seen 10 point variations in the ballots vs. polls. But this was also a poll of Obama at the height of his momentum.
I'm disheartened at the traction this "God Damn America" thing is having, but I guess it's better now than if it were brought up fresh in the General Race, and all I can think is "So where's Hillary's pastor, so we can comb through their sermons? Oh, Right." At least it is forcing the public to realize he's not Muslim. I would truly relish it if someone mentions it to me who has in the past said he was Muslim.
posted
I don't know more than what has been reported about Senator Obama's relationship with the Rev. Wright. I do know something about the church though. Our parish has a relationship with them. Our clergy visits there and their clergy visits us (though I don't recall Rev. Wright visiting.) As a matter of fact, one of their associate pastors preached at our parish last Sunday. Her sermon was powerful and challenging, somewhat more "in your face" than we are used to, but not at all racist. It was also brilliant, eloquent and scholarly. I know that the church is and has been a poweful agent of good in the community. They are very pro African American, but the accusations of racism don't ring true. After all they get along well with our parish and we are a bunch of mostly Irish catholics.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be well pleased to have a president who shares the theology that I personally have heard preached by their clergy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty obvious to me that they grabbed two inflammatory statements from the last 10 years. I mean, remember how Mike Huckabee didn't want to have his sermons released - which were his own words and not those of someone associated with him.
I'm pretty disappointed in the media for participating in this. Do you think they get a rush from the whole witch hunt aspect? And then they've proved that they will continue to ascribe the statements of the departed staffers to Obama's campaign as a whole (as the "monster" slur was just repeated Thursday, I think.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack, personally I think this whole thing is getting out of hand too. I had no real problem with Ferraro's comments and I have no real problem here. People are bound to have a variety of supporters with, well, some variety in them.
(note: based only on the 'God damn America' quote and the 'Obama has only gotten where he has by being black' quote)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting pretty sick of this too. I think Ferraro's statement was worse, because she was in a real position on the campaign. (Obama has said that the man is his preacher, not political advisor). Also, Ferraro's was a clear attempt to discount Obama as a candidate, consistent with the Clinton pattern. But, Clinton's people or Obama's people, I am tired of this. Let's just have both candidates reject and denounce everyone who has ever supported them in any way that has anything politically incorrect in their closet and be done with it.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would be well pleased to have a president who shares the theology that I personally have heard preached by their clergy.
Seems like CNN heard your plea with less then granting hearts.
Well rather, he may share the theology YOU heard the clergy preach but not all the theology any of them have preached from the pulpit.
As an aside, (teach-taught) (preach-praught)?
Wright's personal opinions always concerned me especially since Obama attended his parish for a very long time, but it seems the straw has finally broken the camels back. I find it surprising that Obama claims Wright never made such comments from the pulpit, and I have a hard time believing that Wright does not have close personal relationship with Obama where he could have made such sentiments known.
But I imagine there could be alot of dynamics in the relationship that we are unaware of.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama did not claim that Wright never made such comments from the pulpit. He said that he had never heard Wright making such comments. Since the comments about Clinton were made in December, when Obama was campaigning, it's highly unlikely that he was at home in Chicago attending church at that point.
quote:and I have a hard time believing that Wright does not have close personal relationship with Obama where he could have made such sentiments known.
Did you even read the article you linked to?
quote: Obama and Wright have been close for years. Obama has been a member of Wright's church since his days in law school, and Obama's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," takes its title from one of Wright's sermons.
But Obama also has long maintained he is at odds with some of Wright's sermons, and has likened him to an "old uncle" who sometimes will say things Obama doesn't agree with. He has also specifically denounced Wright's 9/11 comments.
quote:"When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments," Obama wrote. "But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church."
quote:Did you even read the article you linked to?
Um...yes I did, unless you think I am incredibly lucky at linking random subject matter on the internet that just happens to have direct import with what is being said in this thread. But I did think the article was wrapping up and missed that last two paragraphs which make mention of their close personal relationship and the "crazy uncle" dynamic.
quote: Obama and Wright have been close for years. Obama has been a member of Wright's church since his days in law school...
quote:When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign...
It was a very long time between his "days in law school" and, "The beginning of his presidential campaign."
And if he WAS aware of this unorthodox positions why did he appoint him to one of his presidential committees? Wright's influence? Networks?
It just seems strange that Obama would not have been exposed to some of this rhetoric a long time ago.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The statements being referenced as having come to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign were statements about 9/11, which hadn't happened yet during most of that very long time between his "days in law school" and "the beginning of his presidential campaign."
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Michigan already has an election* scheduled for May6th. Nearly the only extra cost would be printing up a separate ballot with the presidential candidates' names on them. A million-or-so dollars at most because counting those ballots would use just a few extra hours of labor and electricity. Every other objection is either pure unadulterated hogwash and/or due to deliberate efforts to prevent any redo.
If Michigan doesn't want to count the new presidential primary ballots... ...paired voluntary workers, one each from the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign, could count the ballots; with similarly paired observers/managers to set aside any disputed ballots for further review. The method of delegate-selection by a political party is not subject to state election laws. A primary election is a convenience provided by the state to their political parties. Whether and how a party uses that convenience is strictly up to that party.
* Admittedly, most politicians would dislike having that large turnout also participating in their school board elections. School boards are mostly political-pork distributors. And those politicians like to have a good feel as to how their pork will be passed along. A large turnout could elect many new school board members with whom those politicians have no experience through which they can make judgments about how future pork will be distributed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If there are no new elections/caucuses in Florida and Michigan, qualify&seat just their pledged-delegates; with minor modifications to present rules. 1) Have the Florida and Michigan delegations be the last to cast their votes on every ballot and reballot. 2) No release from their candidates until after the winning votes are cast. 3) Michigan's delegation should be split by the statewide results only: 71 for Hillary and 57 for Obama in recognition that 44.72% of the Michigan vote was cast specificly against Hillary. 4) To maintain equity in the treatment of both states, Florida's delegation should be split by statewide results only: 92 for Clinton and 28 for Edwards and 65 for Obama; ie 49.80% for Hillary, with the remainder split between Edwards* and Obama since both qualified for delegates and the vote percentages for the all of the other candidates were derived from votes cast specificly against Clinton. 5) The pledged-delegates of both states are banned from lobbying for or against and/or voting upon any measure concerning the qualification&seating of and/or the allocation of delegates between states and/or the size of any delegation.
If an offending state party doesn't want seat its own delegation by those rules and those delegate splits, recognize a group from amongst the state party's challengers as the legitimate delegation to the DemocraticNationalConvention.
Clinton would receive far more delegates than she would have received in fairly contested elections. Clinton gains 14 pledged-delegates over Obama in Michigan, and gains 27 pledged-delegates over Obama in Florida. And that 41 pledged-delegate net-gain for Clinton is FAR more than she would have received in fairly contested elections. I'm highly skeptical that Clinton would have netted any gain upon Obama had Michigan and Florida kept their elections fair.
The DemocraticNationlConvention would then be more than fairly accommodating the vote of the people. And denying Florida and Michigan superdelegates participation in the DemocraticNationalConvention would spank the state politicians for deliberately creating this mess in the first place. If there is anything that politicians dislike enough to find hurtful, it's being ignored.
The problem being that though Obama would probably accept that delegate split, Clinton probably would not. The Clinton machine has been far less than helpful to Democratic presidential candidates since the beginning of the 2000Campaign season. It gave Gore minimal support -- mostly because Gore already knew where much of it was coming from through his efforts to help elect&re-elect Bill -- but expended almost no effort in convincing Clinton donors and campaign workers to contribute to the Gore campaign. And Kerry was pretty much locked out of access to the Clinton machinery. One can only conclude that the Clintons' lack of helpfulness was in hopes of keeping Gore and Kerry out of the WhiteHouse in order to maintain an open path for Hillary's future bid for the Presidency. I find such past behavior to be indicative of how the Clintons will react to any solution that fails to lock the Nomination for Hillary.
Even if she were to say that she accepts such a delegate split and then if she were to lose the Nomination... ...unless she unleashes the full power of the Clinton machine to help the Nominee get elected, as much as 20% of her supporters would either withhold their support&votes from Obama or give their support&vote to McCain in protest of the "unfair" Convention result.....and in hopes of keeping the path open for 2012.
* Edwards got only 14.39% of Florida's statewide vote. Since the cut-off for obtaining pledged-delegates was 15%, he received his share only from the CongressionalDistricts in which he won over 15% of the vote. And what would have been Edwards' share of the pledged-delegates split-by-statewide-results had the rule been otherwise was instead divided 9 for Clinton and 6 for Obama. Since it is impossible to disentangle those who would prefer Clinton from those who would prefer Obama within that Edwards' vote -- ie without holding a new election -- the fairest method of splitting pledged-delegates between Clinton and Obama would be to include Edwards in the statewide-only apportionment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Personally, I feel that the DemocraticNationalConvention would better serve the overwhelmingly vast supermajority of their donors, campaign workers, voters, and state party professionals (including those in Michigan and Florida) by holding firm to its present position: no Florida or Michigan delegates will be allowed to participate unless there are new elections held to fairly apportion those states' pledged-delegates. Any changes to those rules should be made only through a vote at DemocraticNationalConvention, and apply only to future primaries and Conventions.
I don't know if VA will go for Obama or not, but, it's going to be a major battleground state this year (I think SC will be too, but we'll see). But look at the moves that have been made in Virginia lately. NOVA (Northern Virginia) has been experiencing constant population growth for years, and it's a heavily Democratic area. They elected Jim Webb in 2006, flipping a Republican seat, they've elected a Democratic governor in 2006 as well I believe, they have a very, very popular Democratic former governor running for the Senate to try and take a longstanding Republican seat.
The state is trending more and more Democratic as a whole in recent years, and where it would I think have been untouchable four years ago, this year, regardless of the polls in March, it will be a swing state, battleground state, whatever you call it. And in the end I think Obama will have an edge, but that's purely a guess.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Florida will go for McCain no matter which Democrat he faces. Call it a gut feeling--and I certainly hope I'm wrong if he's up against Obama. But McCain is the kind of Republican that plays well here. Florida is not like the rest of the south. They're not about Bible-thumping Republicans but about strong militaries, maintaining the embargo against Cuba, and cutting taxes. McCain's less Bible-belty style of Republicanism plays better here.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be so happy when the PA primary is over, I've been asked at least 20 times today if I'm registered to vote by Obama supporters. I liked it so much better when they weren't everywhere. I get it, Obama supporters are passionate about their candidate but is it to much to ask to be left alone? I can't sit in Rittenhouse Square in Philly without being asked every 20 min to register.
Sigh. Wake me up in November.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama just picked up another 7 delegates--the fruits of his Jan. 3 Iowa win, and switched votes from Edwards delegates at the county level. link
quote: Counting Iowa's results Saturday, an Associated Press delegate tally showed Obama with 1,610 delegates and Clinton with 1,496.
I wonder if this is a trend? Several analysts had expressed the opinion that Clinton's people were more experienced and would have the advantage over Obama's people at the county and state conventions that ultimately pick the national party delegates (depending on each states' rules), potentially losing Obama some of his delegates.
This info go against that, they more than held their own.
Also, I wonder just how accurate all the delegate count estimates will end up being in states without direct primaries? Will they keep revising significantly?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder when McCain will pick a Vice president. I guess he's waiting to see who he will be running against, but if that can't be known until the convention, then what?
Is he waiting to see if Obama is free?
I think Obama would have more problem serving under McCain for a few reasons (mostly he seems to believe in the abortion rights firewall and he is diametrically opposed to McCain on Iraq.)
Another potential scenario is Michael Bloomberg jumps into things (this is nearly as fantastical), creates complete chaos for a bit, and then a deal is struck where Bloomberg becomes Vice President. I mean, what kind of rules exist on switching party?
I mean, if McCain is going to pick Giuliani (who is pro-choice) I'd rather he picked Bloomberg. Obama is obviously a much larger reach. Hmm.
Ideally, if McCain had any security of knowing who he was running against, he'd could probably find a woman for running against Hillary, but if he's running against Obama, he'll probably pick a white man - probably someone who can help him in a large battleground state (Florida's Charlie Crist comes to mind.)
Well, I guess if people can amuse themselves hoping Paul will win the Republican nomination, I can amuse myself hoping McCain could select Obama as a VP.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, according to Fox News, Sen. McCain is now visiting Iraq: "This is the senator’s eighth visit to Iraq. He’s accompanied by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C."
Could it be that McCain is bringing these two because they are on his short list of possible vice-pesidential running mates? He would want them to be able to say they have been to Iraq, something I don't think Sens. Obama or Clinton can say.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lindsey Graham? I doubt it. The governor of SC maybe though. I'd say Obama is nearly impossible as well. I don't care how centrist Obama's public image might be, he's still a liberal, and he's diametrically opposed to McCain on a dozen different things. They'd never work well together.
Bloomberg has already said he isn't running, and besides, he'd push McCain's ticket to the right, not the left. I still think he needs a staunch Conservative. Too many people will be afraid he'll die in office, making his VP choice maybe the most important in a couple decades.
But he'll make the decision soon. Maybe before the end of March, before the end of April for sure, if for no other reason than it's one more person to campaign and sit in on major fundraisers to get cash in the bank while the Dems fight it out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
If he weren't a tourist, he'd worry about how the run-up to the GeneralElection could influence those militants into launching attacks against UStroops.
But then, for "the first 10 weeks of the year, the war accounted for 3 percent of...news coverage. During the same period in 2007, Iraq filled 23 percent." Ostensibly the "war has nearly vanished from TV screens over the past few months" because "this is a war that everyone has grown tired of." Whether that diminished media attention is a side effect from or a cause of the purported disinterest/malaise, "two weeks ago...only 28 percent knew that just about 4,000 Americans have been killed" when previously about "half of Americans have consistently been able to correctly estimate how many U.S. military personnel have died there, most recently last August."
So it's not surprising that McCain would choose the phrasing most likely to capture public attention.
posted
McCain hasn't annoucned a Veep because the timing isn't right, now that he's secured the nomination he needs time for Huckabee's name to fade because he doesn't or won't choose Huckabee. And with the long lull until the Pennslyvania primary he needs a big story (like announcing a veep) to wrest some newstime back his way so that the conflict between Clinton and Obama doesn't completely overshadow his campaign leading into that primary. My guess is that he'll probably announce Romney as his choice inside a week of the Pennslyvania primary.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Whether that diminished media attention is a side effect from or a cause of the purported disinterest/malaise, "two weeks ago...only 28 percent knew that just about 4,000 Americans have been killed" when previously about "half of Americans have consistently been able to correctly estimate how many U.S. military personnel have died there, most recently last August."
I wish they specified whether the 72% overestimated or underestimated the toll.
quote:My guess is that he'll probably announce Romney as his choice inside a week of the Pennslyvania primary.
Don't underestimate the bad blood between those two. McCain and Bush still hate each other, eight years later. The rift between Romney and McCain is a lot fresher, and frankly, Romney isn't any more popular, if anything he's even more unelectable than McCain. I don't think he adds anything to the ticket, and I think he'd make a lot of people nervous as a heartbeat away from a very old president.
There are better, more popular options out there that are less divisive, and that even will have executive experience to shore up McCain's being a senator.
You may end up being right, but I'm guessing not. All the other major presidential candidates on the Republican side have some pretty serious downsides to them as running mates. Why bother with their baggage?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too many people think Romney is the anti-christ. It's stupid, but we are a democratic republic so what can you do? I guess McCain still might do that, but I think it would be an enormous mistake.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Picking a VP has a lot of potential negatives for McCain though. He has a lot of appeal to independnts. If he picks a staunch conservative, independents might rethink there position. If he picks a moderate, then conservative's issues with him will be emphasized. In general, he does much better by leaving that slot empty.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: "It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."
Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.
posted
I think now that the republican race is pretty much over they really should close the primaries so its just dems and indies.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.
"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.
Yeah, Hillary believes it. Otherwise she'd spin this into how America is finally waking up to its unfulfilled need for experienced leadership.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't. But I do think that voting for the guy you think you can beat is wrong. I considered it myself in January, and rejected the idea. I don't like that kind of meddling. I think it's dishonorable and goes against the spirit of the process.
But I also don't think we should be restricting access to polls for people who legitimately want to cross over this election. I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's right either. I guess there is no way to prove it. I'm just curious why people are unwilling to believe it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
I'm willing to bet the ads began as a response to the number of Republicans who crossed over to vote for Hilary in OH and TX.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right or wrong aside, I think it is rather foolish to vote for the weaker Democrat candidate in order to improve the odds for the Republican candidate. It would make sense IF the purpose of an election were simply to have your side "win" - if that were the case then you'd want to go up against an opponent that is as weak a candidate as possible. But that is not the real goal of an election. The real goal of an election is to end up with the best leaders possible, even if that means selecting a leader from the "other side".
The trouble is that many dedicated liberals and many dedicated conservatives can't imagine the possibility that their side might be wrong. And thus it seems to them that the only way to get the best leaders is by having their side win. But the truth is liberals ARE sometimes wrong and conservatives ARE sometimes wrong, and in situations where they are wrong it is to their benefit if the other party can field a candidate strong enough to prevent them from acting on their wrong belief. Yes, it is better for you if your party loses when your party is not fielding the best candidate or the best platform, even though you think your party has the best candidate and best platform.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
But I don't think Obama's adds are saying "Vote for me so that it's easier for McCain to win in November!" That IS what Rush and others are encouraging in terms of voting for Clinton.
posted
A person crossing parties to vote for someone because they think he would be a good president is fundamentally different than someone crossing parties to screw with the other party's election.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
There's a clear difference between those two tactics. Obama's ads are based on the idea that he is the best candidate for president. He is asking republicans to switch sides to vote for him. That's a lot different than trying to sabotage the quality of your opposing party's nominee. Do you vote for a candidate based on his party or his views?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
And him doing that is a bad thing because?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Barack Obama will give a major speech on "the larger issue of race in this campaign," he told reporters in Monaca, PA just now.
He was pressed there, as he has been at recent appearances, on statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
"I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign," he said.
He added that he would "talk about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church issue for example," he said.
He also briefly defended Wright from the image that has come through in a handful of repeatedly televised clips from recent Wright sermons.
"The caricature that’s being painted of him is not accurate," he said.
The speech could offer Obama an opportunity to move past the controversy over his pastor, and to turn the conversation to a topic he'd rather focus on: his Christian faith. But the speech also guarantees that the Wright story will continue to dominate political headlines.
Not so coincidentally, I picked up and started reading a book that's been sitting on my bookshelf for over a year on Friday. I've got about 50 pages to go in "Dreams from my Father" by Barack Obama.
There's a lot in the book about anger and fear between blacks and whites. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it all.
But it's an - interesting - experience to read the book against the backdrop of the current controversy.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
