Can Obama win the Presidency(if given the Dem nomination)?
good2speed
04-03-2008 09:41:13
Can Obama win the presidency if given the Dem nomination?
It appears the domcrats are split bw Hillary and Obama right now. Obama really only holds half of the Democratic populaces support, while Mccain is much closer to 100% on the Rep side. Who's to say those democratic voters who are on the fence won't choose Mccain over Obama.
As far as I see it Mccain has the republican vote all locked up. If you are a republican and its between Obama and Mccain the vote becomes a no-brainer. In the southern states this will be big. I expect MCcain to take home all electoral votes from states below the Mason-Dixon.
Obama will need the electoral votes of the major states(NY,Cali, Mass, Ill). If he falls in any of those states this election will be a route.
I just don't see Obama being succesful in a head to head with a white republican candidate. If anything all we've learned so far is that in all Democratic election a black man can beat a white woman.
doylnea
04-03-2008 09:49:10
Have you read any of the polling data, or is this based on personal opinion?
good2speed
04-03-2008 09:52:02
[quotee71ab4031d="doylnea"]Have you read any of the polling data, or is this based on personal opinion?[/quotee71ab4031d]\
personal opinion. Please provide some links that suggests Obama stands a chance in a heads up versus Mccain. Would love to read it.
ForceBucks
04-03-2008 09:55:05
Of course he can. Everyone hates McCain, even us republicans! (
justinag06
04-03-2008 09:56:58
In head to head polls Obama leads McCain I thought.
I also personally know lots of republicans, pledging/considering voting for Obama. I think he has a chance to take away lots of republican votes.
justinag06
04-03-2008 09:58:53
[quote88ddd16013="good2speed"][quote88ddd16013="doylnea"]Have you read any of the polling data, or is this based on personal opinion?[/quote88ddd16013]\
personal opinion. Please provide some links that suggests Obama stands a chance in a heads up versus Mccain. Would love to read it.[/quote88ddd16013]
http//www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/
http//time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/02/natl_poll_obama_leads_mccain_i.html
good2speed
04-03-2008 10:01:26
this is the electoral splits in the last elections.
http//www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/
I personally though no one would vote for Bush after the 2000-2004 disaster but to my surprise he took all of the southern states. Look at the graph. The deomcrats are losing states right and left. They're only succesful on both coasts. They trail in the middle states.
Obama will have to pull off some type of miracle to take those red states.
Powerbook
04-03-2008 10:02:08
CNN had a poll last week that said if the election was that week McCain would beat Obama by 8 points. I like Obama and alll, but I am sick of the whole "change" appeal. I would like to know exactly what he is going to change in detail. Hillary seems to be more open about what she will do. I like how the media is now being tougher on Obama instead of Clinton.
doylnea
04-03-2008 10:12:15
Thanks for the assist justinag ;) And G2S, you can't rely on 4 year old results - the political landscape has changed dramatically in the last 2 years, let alone 4 years. Generally you see Obama ahead in national head-to-heads with McCain. In the two most recent polls where McCain is ahead, his support has dipped since the previous poll by the same polling company. I don't think there's much support for the argument that McCain will will handily over Obama in a national election, if held right now.
good2speed
04-03-2008 10:16:28
you already know the republican campaign. They will campaign that they need a rep. in office to keep the country safe. They will laabel Obama as soft and unable to lead the country in warring times. They will show the picture of Obama in "islamic' gear and will replay and replay that image. They will go out of there way to show how Mccain is a hero and willing to sacrifice his life for the betterment of America.
Commercials such as these
- Dont let 9/11 happen again. Mccain has been hard on fighting the terorists and those who wish to attack. Obama has not been hard enough. Dont let Obama allow this country to fall prey to attack again.(graphic images included)
- Mccain has fought for this country and been a POW. He understands what it needs to be an American. Vote for someone you know.
These type of ads will speak directly to the southern populace and hold more weigth then you could imagine. I'm predicting a blow-out. If Obama stands any chance he must secure NY, Cali, ill, and Massachussets. If he cant win those states hes gonna get run over.
good2speed
04-03-2008 10:18:32
[quote91d7a6002d="doylnea"]Thanks for the assist justinag ;) And G2S, you can't rely on 4 year old results - the political landscape has changed dramatically in the last 2 years, let alone 4 years. Generally you see Obama ahead in national head-to-heads with McCain. In the two most recent polls where McCain is ahead, his support has dipped since the previous poll by the same polling company. I don't think there's much support for the argument that McCain will will handily over Obama in a national election, if held right now.[/quote91d7a6002d]
I dont know how they factor their polls or if electoral votes are even considered. I'm imaging their polls are conducted using populace vote. If so we know thats meaningless because Bush won the presidency in 2000 even after losing(edit) the populace vote.
bruman
04-03-2008 10:23:18
After what Bush did for the Republicans in the past 8 years McCain doesn't stand the chance. McCain is just more of the same. When theres been discontent on a nationwide scale about the war, the economy, etc. people always vote for the other party in hopes of shifting the tide so to speak. The republican base is rather small as well, you can see this by comparing how many democratic votes to how many republican votes there are. There are always large turnouts on the democratic side and many times there are as many as 2-3x more democratic votes than compared to the republican side. So whoever the democrat is will win. Obama moreso because he is less-hated than Hilary. There is a lot of polling data to back this up.
good2speed
04-03-2008 10:29:58
[quotead2494fb5e="bruman"]After what Bush did for the Republicans in the past 8 years McCain doesn't stand the chance. McCain is just more of the same. When theres been discontent on a nationwide scale about the war, the economy, etc. people always vote for the other party in hopes of shifting the tide so to speak. The republican base is rather small as well, you can see this by comparing how many democratic votes to how many republican votes there are. There are always large turnouts on the democratic side and many times there are as many as 2-3x more democratic votes than compared to the republican side. So whoever the democrat is will win. Obama moreso because he is less-hated than Hilary. There is a lot of polling data to back this up.[/quotead2494fb5e]
Well for what bush did in his first 4 years the republicans shouldve been sick of him and he shouldnt have stood a chance. I really dont see how these last 4 years of his presidency are any worse then his first 4.
There are more democrats engaged in these primaries. This is due to the fact of a woman and a black man running against one another. Groups that never turned out to vote before are coming out in record numbers. To that point I do agree. It still wont matter for Obama as he's still likely to lse the red states. He may threaten to aquire states with large black populatiions(SC, ALA,ARK, Tenn,etc) but I'd bet you you'll have republican record turnout.
Just because republicans aren't showing up for the primaries doesnt mean they wont be there for the major election. Especially if they have an agenda to keep a black man from reaching the presidency.
hehehhehe
04-03-2008 10:38:09
Yeah in pretty much everything I've read and seen (polls and such, like the ones linked by justina), Obama has the lead over McCain. I think we've also had some posts here describing something to that effect.
I think the press is pretty kind to Obama so that can be a factor as to why we're hearing this a lot too.
[quote5cc16705a0="good2speed"]I dont know how they factor their polls or if electoral votes are even considered. I'm imaging their polls are conducted using populace vote. If so we know thats meaningless because Bush won the presidency in 2000 even after losing(edit) the populace vote.[/quote5cc16705a0]
I wouldn't say its meaningless but I see your point. They'd have to show the separate poll numbers in each state to see how the electoral votes would stack up.
[quote5cc16705a0="good2speed"]If Obama stands any chance he must secure NY, Cali, ill, and Massachussets. If he cant win those states hes gonna get run over.[/quote5cc16705a0]
It's pretty much a given that he'd win those states. What he needs to do is win some states in the south like Florida and the swing states like Ohio (which is a given too, just pointing it out).
I'm still rooting for Clinton...
good2speed
04-03-2008 10:53:46
I've been surprised Obama has been able to ride this wave this long. It does appear he's the fav to win the election according to sportsbooks and a few polls conducted.
This race however hasnt really heated up yet. While Obama fights for his nomination the Republicans are already beginning to design their smear campaigns. I think Obama is too nice and isn't prepared to fight a smear campaign. You can only be chic for so long, Oprah can only get you so far. After a while your going to need some substance. I just believe Obama is ill prepared to battle the smear campaign that he's about to face.
Dont get it confused. Republicans still ahve a lot to lose. They made a lot of money with Bush running the show. All of their sponsors that raked in millions/billions from the war in IRaq dont want to give up their position. Don't assume the Republicans are going to give up lightly. There's a lot of money at stake.
dmorris68
04-03-2008 10:54:43
[quotef94f3c0cc5="ForceBucks"]Of course he can. Everyone hates McCain, even us republicans! ([/quotef94f3c0cc5]
Speak for yourself. Only the most conservative Repubs don't like McCain, because they don't consider him conservative enough. Us moderates love him, and he's very popular with independents and conservative Dems. Have you even seen the numbers behind the votes? Once Huckabee gives up and gets out of the way, the Republican party will rally nearly 100% behind McCain -- you'll see very few registered Republicans "jump the fence" to vote for a Democrat. Even the independents favor McCain over Obama.
If Obama wins the nomination (and I hope he does, for the very reason I'd much rather risk losing to him than Hillary), then it's going to be a VERY close race. McCain will have a significant uphill battle to be sure, but it's not going to be a landslide either way.
[quotef94f3c0cc5="bruman"]After what Bush did for the Republicans in the past 8 years McCain doesn't stand the chance. [/quotef94f3c0cc5]
Hardly. McCain is as different from most Republicans as, well, your hero Ron Paul. ) And despite what Bush-haters like to believe, Bush has had good ideas on many issues that are widely supported, they just get drowned out by the wars and the anti-Bushers, who believe he can do nothing right and automatically discount anything he says. McCain sides with Bush on most issues I agree with, while on others -- like the management of the war (not the war itself), torture, etc. -- McCain disagrees with Bush.
I don't know if you're reading the same polls I am, but all the ones I've seen over the last couple weeks have Obama and McCain in a statistical tie, save for the one I saw that actually had McCain [if94f3c0cc5]beating[/if94f3c0cc5] Obama by a few points outside the margin of error. That said, given the complicated situation of delegates and the electoral college, anything can happen. As we saw with Bush v. Gore, one candidate can certainly win the popular vote yet still lose the electoral vote, which is the one that counts in our system. I tend to say our electoral system needs to be abolished, but I'm admittedly thankful it saved us from a Gore presidency -- he would be as bad as Hillary, if not worse, IMO.
zr2152
04-03-2008 11:22:56
Do you guys think that the country is socially ready for a black president?
Dmorris?
bruman
04-03-2008 11:39:04
[quotef057794298="zr2152"]Do you guys think that the country is socially ready for a black president?[/quotef057794298]
For those who aren't racist, why not?
EatChex89
04-03-2008 11:39:06
Here is why Obama will win
1) McCain and Obama are both douche bags,
2) Everyone is sick of Republicans (thanks to Dubya)
3) People think a democrat will solve their problems.
But here's the kicker.. Obama or McCain aren't going to do shit. The President is nothing more than a glorified representative of the United States.
zr2152
04-03-2008 11:42:53
[quotea51d19db73="EatChex89"]Here is why Obama will win
1) McCain and Obama are both douche bags,
2) Everyone is sick of Republicans (thanks to Dubya)
3) People think a democrat will solve their problems.
But here's the kicker.. Obama or McCain aren't going to do shit. The President is nothing more than a glorified representative of the United States.[/quotea51d19db73]
So who would do something? Congress?
good2speed
04-03-2008 11:52:13
[quotee964e96a8b="EatChex89"]The President is nothing more than a glorified representative of the United States.[/quotee964e96a8b]
have a read
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
key note
[quotee964e96a8b]
President Theodore Roosevelt famously called the presidency a "bully pulpit" from which to raise issues nationally, for when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate. (Although in the argot of his day "bully" was simply a slang adjective meaning "nifty" or "effective", today this phrase is frequently taken at face value with the more common sense of the word "bully".) A president's power and influence may be limited, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington and, furthermore, is one of the most famous and influential of all Americans.
Though constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the President's executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and his power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant. (The exact limits of what a President can do with the military without Congressional authorization are open to debate.)
[/quotee964e96a8b]
dmorris68
04-03-2008 11:52:35
[quote0097325d63="zr2152"]Do you guys think that the country is socially ready for a black president?
Dmorris?[/quote0097325d63]
As a whole country, certainly. In fact many, like myself, feel a bit excited about the prospect. As I would a woman president, were it someone other than Hillary. Not that race or gender is necessarily relevant to being a president, but it would be a refreshing change that I believe would help break down racial barriers elsewhere.
Will there be a few pockets of idiots who have a problem with him simply (or primarily) becasue of his race? Yeah, I'm sure of it. But I don't care what stupid people think.
box86rowh
04-03-2008 14:19:30
[quote64967415e1="doylnea"]Thanks for the assist justinag ;) And G2S, you can't rely on 4 year old results - the political landscape has changed dramatically in the last 2 years, let alone 4 years. Generally you see Obama ahead in national head-to-heads with McCain. In the two most recent polls where McCain is ahead, his support has dipped since the previous poll by the same polling company. I don't think there's much support for the argument that McCain will will handily over Obama in a national election, if held right now.[/quote64967415e1]
Polls suck....Kerry was ahead by that and more...
box86rowh
04-03-2008 14:22:15
[quotef0947ebeac="dmorris68"][quotef0947ebeac="zr2152"]Do you guys think that the country is socially ready for a black president?
Dmorris?[/quotef0947ebeac]
Will there be a few pockets of idiots who have a problem with him simply (or primarily) becasue of his race? Yeah, I'm sure of it. But I don't care what stupid people think.[/quotef0947ebeac]
There will also be people who will vote for him simply because he is black...they are just as bad in my mind...I don't care what color the person his, I just don't agree with his policies....which happen to consist totally of "change and hope".
J4320
04-03-2008 14:45:35
Wait, so you don't want change or hope?
EatChex89
04-03-2008 14:49:53
[quote3da953cabb="J4320"]Wait, so you don't want change or hope?[/quote3da953cabb]
I don't. Not the change and "hope" he is planning to put in.
Also, I'm not concerned about past presidents and what they have done. The government is controlled by money. Who has money? Large corporations. They influence many decisions made by government and are contributing to the economic status difference in individuals, poor vs wealthy, and eliminating the middle-class in order to obtain more corporate wealth or personal wealth for the owner.
Capitalism is being abused.
box86rowh
04-03-2008 15:33:02
[quote10f36e521e="J4320"]Wait, so you don't want change or hope?[/quote10f36e521e]
Not if the "Change" is not being described and you don't have any idea what the "Hope" will be in...
good2speed
04-03-2008 15:50:28
[quotecf031edab3="EatChex89"]
Also, I'm not concerned about past presidents and what they have done. The government is controlled by money. Who has money? Large corporations. They influence many decisions made by government and are contributing to the economic status difference in individuals, poor vs wealthy, and eliminating the middle-class in order to obtain more corporate wealth or personal wealth for the owner.
Capitalism is being abused.[/quotecf031edab3]
Presidential powers really havent changed much the past 100 years. They increased during FDR's 4 terms in office. Congress soon amended the constitution to limit the terms a persident can run. Nixon tested the powers of the presidency and came up short. If anything i'd say presidential powers have drastically increased during Bush's terms in office. Bush defied international opinion and unilaterally changed the balance of international engagement.
Corporations have always 'influenced' both domestic and foreign policy. They call it lobbying. It's nothing new and has been around for a while. The American president has always had to accomadate his most important constituents(corporations and heavy donors to his campaign).
Powerbook
04-03-2008 15:53:59
[quote59697c3efa="box86rowh"][quote59697c3efa="J4320"]Wait, so you don't want change or hope?[/quote59697c3efa]
Not if the "Change" is not being described and you don't have any idea what the "Hope" will be in...[/quote59697c3efa]
Amen. I do not see why most people do not see this. I support Hillary because she says what she will do. McCain, Huckabee, and Hillary are doing a much better job of that. Obama is all talk as far as I am concerned. He is a great person though, however he is not very clear of his exact plans.
J4320
04-03-2008 16:08:14
I'm pretty sure that Obama will win the dem nomination. Hillary has been advised to drop out if she doesn't win Ohio and Texas. (Or so I hear, I think I recall reading that off of a digg headline. Digg is really pro Obama JTLYK.). Oh and I can't stand Hillary. She is REALLY two-sided and she's a snake. She's desperate and she'll resort to almost anything to win.
hehehhehe
04-03-2008 16:45:06
[quote440c1afbb6="J4320"]I'm pretty sure that Obama will win the dem nomination. Hillary has been advised to drop out if she doesn't win Ohio and Texas. (Or so I hear, I think I recall reading that off of a digg headline. Digg is really pro Obama JTLYK.). Oh and I can't stand Hillary. She is REALLY two-sided and she's a snake. She's desperate and she'll resort to almost anything to win.[/quote440c1afbb6]
She doesn't have to win both, but if she loses both there'll be a lot of pressure for her to withdraw. The polls were looking pretty good for her so we'll see what happens. If she's still close, she'll probably bring up the states without delegates that she won like Florida and Michigan somehow.
I'd say the press has been pro-Obama in general. It's trendy to support him.
slambam
04-03-2008 18:29:22
[quote7a10bdbbcb="good2speed"]
- Mccain has fought for this country and been a POW. He understands what it needs to be an American. Vote for someone you know.[/quote7a10bdbbcb]
I don't give a shit who fought for the country or was a POW. He's been playing that, "Yay I'm a former POW" card for way too long now. It has absolutely nothing to do with how good of a president you can be. I just don't see it in McCain. He just seems like a cold fish with absolutely 0 personality, and rather arrogant. I don't think I've ever seen him smile. Hell, thoughts of McCain in the White House make even BUSH sound good.
justinag06
04-03-2008 19:21:53
http//blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/04/betting-on-a-blue-texas/?mod=googlenews_wsj
michae229
04-03-2008 19:38:29
i voted twice baby!!!!!!
TravMan162
04-03-2008 19:40:45
I think McCain wants to seek revenge on the world for what happened to him. He seems like a very angry individual who has an itch to start war. I could totally be misreading him as a person, but I mean, probably not.
Hilary, Obama, McCain, I don't feel particularly comfortable with any of them and I think bad things are going to happen. Maybe I'm a pessimist, who knows. But I am hoping that whoever wins can pull this joint together and set us on the right foot again. We need a leader that actually has more than 12% approval. We need a leader that we actually want to work with instead of criticize.
good2speed
05-03-2008 08:21:19
[quoteba0b505dd6="justinag06"]http//blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/04/betting-on-a-blue-texas/?mod=googlenews_wsj[/quoteba0b505dd6]
Best link yet. It does favor your argument but a few points to take into context
[quoteba0b505dd6]
That would be no small feat. After all, back in 1976 Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic presidential contender to take the majority of votes there(Texas) in the general election. [/quoteba0b505dd6]
[quoteba0b505dd6]
“It requires a huge adrenaline surge among Democrats in Texas to believe that Texas will go Democratic in November,” he said. “You assume that in a Democratic sweep of significant proportions, you’re still going to be looking at states like Idaho, and Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, [and] Alabama, that would stay red. So for Texas to [turn Democratic] in November, that presumes a national Democratic sweep like we have not seen in 40 years.[bba0b505dd6] It’s not inconceivable, but don’t bet the house[/bba0b505dd6].”[/quoteba0b505dd6]
michae229
07-03-2008 19:36:06
Update Obama won Texas
[quoteec7b9e0e27="michae229"]Update Obama won Texas[/quoteec7b9e0e27]
Uhhh.... No?
[quoteec7b9e0e27]Texas Democratic presidential primary, 2008
100% of precincts reporting
Candidate Votes Percentage Delegates
[bec7b9e0e27]Hillary Clinton 1,459,814 50.89% 65[/bec7b9e0e27]
Barack Obama 1,358,785 47.37% 61[/quoteec7b9e0e27]
michae229
08-03-2008 07:54:05
[quote3c881ddfcc="h3x"][quote3c881ddfcc="michae229"]Update Obama won Texas[/quote3c881ddfcc]
Uhhh.... No?
[quote3c881ddfcc]Texas Democratic presidential primary, 2008
100% of precincts reporting
Candidate Votes Percentage Delegates
[b3c881ddfcc]Hillary Clinton 1,459,814 50.89% 65[/b3c881ddfcc]
Barack Obama 1,358,785 47.37% 61[/quote3c881ddfcc][/quote3c881ddfcc]
BREAKING MSM Finally Admits Obama Won Texas
uhhhh.... yes caucus wasn't in yet look at the numbers
i know its a blog but its true
http//www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/texas_twostep_leaving_dems_fla_1.html
even Olberman says he won our state.
dont ever question anything with Texas!
Powerbook
08-03-2008 08:13:53
Um Clinton won the Texas primary..... Caucuses are stupid. If Florida and Michigan have a revote or if the delegates are seated Clinton will come out on top. I still have yet to see what Obama will change.
Gigante
08-03-2008 08:14:48
[quotec407fd120d="bruman"]After what Bush did for the Republicans in the past 8 years McCain doesn't stand the chance. McCain is just more of the same. When theres been discontent on a nationwide scale about the war, the economy, etc. people always vote for the other party in hopes of shifting the tide so to speak. The republican base is rather small as well, you can see this by comparing how many democratic votes to how many republican votes there are. There are always large turnouts on the democratic side and many times there are as many as 2-3x more democratic votes than compared to the republican side. So whoever the democrat is will win. Obama moreso because he is less-hated than Hilary. There is a lot of polling data to back this up.[/quotec407fd120d]
There are many inconsistencies here, particularly, you say McCain is more Bush. You obviously do not look at actual positions of candidates and just the party for which they run for. Bush is a very conservative republican (except for spending). You can't even try to fit McCain into this category. Also, the republican base isn't small, and you really should underestimate them. Republican has less members but have a much higher voter turnout which makes up for it. If "there are always large turnouts on the democratic site and there are as many as 2-3x more democratic votes" were true, then why would we even be having this discussion? If 3x the dems vote, then obviously they will win....
michae229
08-03-2008 10:51:32
[quotefadc57aa72="Powerbook"]Um Clinton won the Texas primary..... Caucuses are stupid. If Florida and Michigan have a revote or if the delegates are seated Clinton will come out on top. I still have yet to see what Obama will change.[/quotefadc57aa72]
he won the caucus and beat her in delegates he won end of story....
also
i can see obama winning Michigan and teing Florida she stayed in the ballot in Michigan and only got 50% of the vote which is very low where in most counties uncommitted beat her. At the time Edwards was still running . but hey if you want a person like Hillary that slams her own party agrees with McCain and praises him "admitted by Bill". And tries to scare you with crappy commercials like the republicans on the war on terror, where we give up our liberties then be it. LOL its funny when people think they have the right to power because their husband had it first.
Powerbook
08-03-2008 11:18:46
[quotec8557662e5="michae229"][quotec8557662e5="Powerbook"]Um Clinton won the Texas primary..... Caucuses are stupid. If Florida and Michigan have a revote or if the delegates are seated Clinton will come out on top. I still have yet to see what Obama will change.[/quotec8557662e5]
he won the caucus and beat her in delegates he won end of story....
also
i can see obama winning Michigan and teing Florida she stayed in the ballot in Michigan and only got 50% of the vote which is very low where in most counties uncommitted beat her. At the time Edwards was still running . but hey if you want a person like Hillary that slams her own party agrees with McCain and praises him "admitted by Bill". And tries to scare you with crappy commercials like the republicans on the war on terror, where we give up our liberties then be it. LOL its funny when people think they have the right to power because their husband had it first.[/quotec8557662e5]
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Obama did not WIN the Texas primary. You mean he won the caucus. Hillary could easily win Florida, and even most likely Michigan if they did do a revote. I understand you do not like her, however you couldn't be more wrong. I like Obama as well, but he has a very shady past like most politicians do yet he speaks about change. Whoever wins the democratic primary gets my vote. As far as I am concerned McCain just might be worse than Bush, but that is my opinion. I will agree with any Republican on this board that McCain has a good chance of winning the election. CNN likes to say he would have a better chance beating Hillary. I think he would have an easier chance beating Obama. The republicans will get so much dirt on Obama combined with those effective ads criticizing his experience that McCain just might win. Don't look at polls. I'll still be voting for the democratic nominee. If a Republican such as Dmorris came in and shined his light on this discussion I am sure some of you would notice Obama does not have a clear cut victory against McCain.
good2speed
14-03-2008 12:44:33
Changed my mind. I think Obama can win the bid. Economy is going to be a major issue in this election. Americans voters are going to assume the reason we are in recession is because of the war mongering conducted by the current administration. It's like 1992 all over again. As long as Obama can center his campaign around solid economic startegies and bringing an end to this war he can win this election.
Gas price is expected to rise to 3.75 this summer. Whoever wins the democratic bid must center their campaign around the economy and they'll have a slam dunk win in the election.
michae229
14-03-2008 22:59:04
I hope he can win but look at this preacher crap now thats out damn them. Anyone think this can mess things up?
[quoteb2aa629aba]In a new Rasmussen poll in Pennsylvania (March 12, 697 Dem LV, MoE +/- 4%), Clinton's lead over Obama remains about the same from a week ago.
[bb2aa629aba]Clinton 51 (-1 vs. last poll, March 5)[/bb2aa629aba]
Obama 38 (+1)
Undecided 11
[bb2aa629aba]Clinton holds a 16.0-point lead in the RCP Average for Pennsylvania[/bb2aa629aba][/quoteb2aa629aba]
[quoteb2aa629aba]General Election McCain vs. Obama
RCP Average
[bb2aa629aba]Obama (D) 45.5%[/bb2aa629aba]
McCain (R) 44.8%
Undecided 6.7%
[bb2aa629aba]Obama +0.7%[/bb2aa629aba][/quoteb2aa629aba]
[quoteb2aa629aba]General Election McCain vs. Clinton
RCP Average
[bb2aa629aba]Clinton (D) 46.3%[/bb2aa629aba]
McCain (R) 45.8%
Undecided 5.7%
[bb2aa629aba]Clinton +0.5%[/bb2aa629aba][/quoteb2aa629aba]
http//time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/pa_poll_clinton_maintains_doub.html
J4320
15-03-2008 00:10:57
Preacher crap? Can you explain? I haven't really been keeping up on politics. oops
[quote0ea7d957fa="J4320"]Preacher crap? Can you explain? I haven't really been keeping up on politics. oops[/quote0ea7d957fa]
http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881/
Powerbook
15-03-2008 08:29:04
Hmm, as long as a Democrat beats McCain I will be happy. Anyone else notice that the media pretty much let go of the McCain/lobbyist/NY times issue? I actually thought that was a big issue. Much bigger than Obama's preacher....... I doubt that will hurt Obama much. If Michigan and Florida get recounted Hillary will be neck and neck assuming she wins Pennsylvania. I'm pretty sure she can win Puerto Rico but that's just my speculation.
TravMan162
15-03-2008 08:54:08
i don't know if it's all conveniently placed hype with a pro hillary spin on things, (and I don't know much about politics) but it seems as though Barack is suddenly facing a series of personal attacks based on things that may or may not have happened or may or may not have been misinterpreted from his past.
First we had the pictures of him dressing in the Arab clothing or whatever, (may not have been arab, i don't know, i'm referring to the clothing in general, not so much WHO actually wears it) which is causing people to assume he has terrorist ties. Which is probably a gross misconception of the people whose clothes he was actually wearing......
AND
Now these videos of his racist hate-monger, anti-american preacher man that he supported... I'm not saying whether I'm pro or against Barack, I'm just saying, do we believe all this stuff for what it's worth, or do we dismiss it as propaganda. OR do we have to consider it as what it is and form our own opinions of it?
Powerbook
15-03-2008 09:02:01
Hillary has suffered through this kind of ordeal for a while, now the press realizes they should feature Obama. Was Obama a Muslim before he was (fill in whatever faith he has now because I don't know) ? He was a member of his current church and religion for only 20 years. I mean if he was who cares? I hate how people pronounce his middle name with emphasis. He's not a terrorist..... I like Hillary better, but still he is definitely a great candidate. If he wins the nomination which is likely I will vote for him no doubt. I just hope the negative agenda won't be giving McCain an edge when it come to November.
good2speed
15-03-2008 09:35:55
I'm coming to Ct for work on Monday - Powerbook. I'll be in your hood.
Trav -
this is just normal politics. It's called smear campaigns. Happens in all modern elections. Basically you dig through a candidates past and try to depict him/her in a demeaning manner. When a candidate achieves too much popularity the opposing party or candidate will do whatever they can to discredit them. They've tried to hit Obama with the oh he's a smoker which went no where. Then came the muslim pictures. Then now his preacher says something stupid.
I personally try to stay away from the general media and try to formulate my own opinions. I can see through smear campaigns because I know of it's vicious purpose. The rest of America may buy into the smear campaigns. What I do know is that they do have some varying degree of being a succesful tool used by politicians.
Hell even defense lawyers use smear campaigns. A defense lawyer spends half his tim on a case just researching the pasts of potential witnesses and ways to discredit any of their testimony.
Powerbook
15-03-2008 10:21:31
Hah, what part of CT? I'm northeast right up on the Mass. border. I'm like 22 minutes away from Hartford which is a shit hole of a city. I'll be in the slum city of troy, ny Monday when classes resume.
good2speed
15-03-2008 11:06:22
[quote50fef7c6ef="Powerbook"]Hah, what part of CT? I'm northeast right up on the Mass. border. I'm like 22 minutes away from Hartford which is a shit hole of a city. I'll be in the slum city of troy, ny Monday when classes resume.[/quote50fef7c6ef]
I'll be out in good ole Danbury. Ever been there? I might have to look at extended accomadations(craigslist). I know Danbury is West CT and I want to remain as close as possible to NYC(< 1 hour away).
TravMan162
15-03-2008 11:06:54
[quotec3abd090f8="good2speed"]I'm coming to Ct for work on Monday - Powerbook. I'll be in your hood.
Trav -
this is just normal politics. It's called smear campaigns. Happens in all modern elections. Basically you dig through a candidates past and try to depict him/her in a demeaning manner. When a candidate achieves too much popularity the opposing party or candidate will do whatever they can to discredit them. They've tried to hit Obama with the oh he's a smoker which went no where. Then came the muslim pictures. Then now his preacher says something stupid.
I personally try to stay away from the general media and try to formulate my own opinions. I can see through smear campaigns because I know of it's vicious purpose. The rest of America may buy into the smear campaigns. What I do know is that they do have some varying degree of being a succesful tool used by politicians.
Hell even defense lawyers use smear campaigns. A defense lawyer spends half his tim on a case just researching the pasts of potential witnesses and ways to discredit any of their testimony.[/quotec3abd090f8]
ah i see. I believe running for president should be about putting what's most important first the security and well being of its people. If they had good enough theories and plans for this, the general public would vote for them and they wouldn't need to resort to high school antics of starting rumors about the other candidate to get what they want.
It's a little juvenile to play that game, no?
p.s. I live in springfield mass, it's about 8 seconds from the CT border, We should all party D D D
good2speed
15-03-2008 11:19:09
[quote7df3736ca0="TravMan162"]
ah i see. I believe running for president should be about putting what's most important first the security and well being of its people. If they had good enough theories and plans for this, the general public would vote for them and they wouldn't need to resort to high school antics of starting rumors about the other candidate to get what they want.
It's a little juvenile to play that game, no?
p.s. I live in springfield mass, it's about 8 seconds from the CT border, We should all party D D D[/quote7df3736ca0]
Great analogy. The politics game is just like HS(Who's the most popular) and politicians do behave like 'juveniles'. It is very childish but when you get down to it an election is just a popularity contest. Politicians reesort to the very same methods HS'ers do to attain popular status.
Ya we should all party. That would be fun.
Powerbook
15-03-2008 11:53:02
Shit, you are 15 minutes away from me right now Trav haha. ) Danbury isn't bad. You are right near the border of NY so that's sick. Something interesting to do is to check out all the mansions not that far away such as the town of Greenwich. Trav do you know where Enfield, CT is? I live ubber close to there.
Back on topic Wow, what that preacher said is pretty controversial. I think Obama should have taken his response to that a bit further.
TravMan162
15-03-2008 12:33:26
yo i live 8 seconds from enfield haha. I always go there for the movie theater because it's less crowded than springfield. Enfield has everything! I love it D
Requiem
18-03-2008 17:56:55
I really am pushing for Hillary. The latest polls are showing that she has the better chance against McCain with her coming out about .6% ahead of McCain when Obama is tied with McCain. She's shortening his gap in NC, and she's got PA. I'm just hoping she can cut into his delegate count well enough.
TravMan162
18-03-2008 18:01:02
[quote7fb9c9eacc="Requiem"]I really am pushing for Hillary. The latest polls are showing that she has the better chance against McCain with her coming out about .6% ahead of McCain when Obama is tied with McCain. She's shortening his gap in NC, and she's got PA. I'm just hoping she can cut into his delegate count well enough.[/quote7fb9c9eacc]
well she's portrayed him as a muslim, portrayed him as a weird sort of black supremacist supporter, if she gets someone to find him kissing a dude or something to complete the smear campaign, it's going to be a wash
dmorris68
18-03-2008 18:31:16
A .6% lead is a statistically non-existent one -- both Clinton and Obama are in a statistical tie against McCain in a general election. The margin of error is 2-3%, so .6% is not a reliably measurable advantage.
Personally, I don't see Hillary winning the nomination, based on Obama's growing popularity and how he handles these little "tempests in a teapot" that Hillary's camp keeps throwing at him. I think he gets (and deserves) a lot more respect from the people than Hillary.
McCain has been too quiet lately, which concerns me. Yes, he has the nomination locked up, but he doesn't need to appear disinterested either. I'd rather see him continuing his campaign push to win independent and undecided voters. If he holds out too long, I think Obama will beat him to them.
TravMan162
18-03-2008 18:58:26
[quoteb03c991c46="dmorris68"]A .6% lead is a statistically non-existent one -- both Clinton and Obama are in a statistical tie against McCain in a general election. The margin of error is 2-3%, so .6% is not a reliably measurable advantage.
Personally, I don't see Hillary winning the nomination, based on Obama's growing popularity and how he handles these little "tempests in a teapot" that Hillary's camp keeps throwing at him. I think he gets (and deserves) a lot more respect from the people than Hillary.
McCain has been too quiet lately, which concerns me. Yes, he has the nomination locked up, but he doesn't need to appear disinterested either. I'd rather see him continuing his campaign push to win independent and undecided voters. If he holds out too long, I think Obama will beat him to them.[/quoteb03c991c46]
Dave, you're pretty much the authority on everything, can we get your opinion on the smear campaign in general?
Doesn't the simple fact that he is trying to be the first black president put him in a potentially volatile situation when faced with the defamation that's coming his way? I mean all the uneducated general public needs to see is a picture of him dressed up as, what they believe is a "terrorist," and that could completely screw him over as far as the voters are concerned?
I mean, we can say that it's ignorant to believe this until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that he is indeed a black man facing the inevitable controversy that accompanies that, and then you get people to think he's a terrorist too? That can't help his cause, whether a few of us can see through it or not.
zdub08
18-03-2008 19:06:00
you wish you were on a first name basis with dmorris
TravMan162
18-03-2008 19:07:20
ha, normally i wouldn't, but since it's posted in his sig, i mean, let's be honest.
You're still Billy Badass though, sorry
michae229
18-03-2008 19:41:43
[quote7a7d43185e="Requiem"]I really am pushing for Hillary. The latest polls are showing that she has the better chance against McCain with her coming out about .6% ahead of McCain when Obama is tied with McCain. She's shortening his gap in NC, and she's got PA. I'm just hoping she can cut into his delegate count well enough.[/quote7a7d43185e]
Hillary is a smear artist and doesn't get alot of respect of the democratic party she is just basically greedy and is tearing the party apart by dragging out the race, if Obama was in her position he would have step down long ago...
dmorris68
18-03-2008 19:44:10
I'm hardly an authority on much of anything. And pay no mind to zdub08, he's just jealous that he has to call me "Daddy." P
Anyway, I see it as just politics as usual. McCain and Obama both have a reputation for rising above most of the mudslinging, but the same can't be said for all of their staff, who's job it is to get them elected at virtually all costs. These people aren't just campaigning for the candidate they love and then going home -- virtually all have self-serving interests in mind (recognition by a sitting president, cabinet positions and other lucrative jobs both in an out of government, etc.). So don't think they won't stop at anything to try to place their candidate above others.
All that said, the Clintons (especially Hillary) have quite the reputation for personally skewering their opposition, and I believe the majority of the American public know this, and it's the reason she's resented a lot. As I said, both Obama and McCain deserve a lot more respect, IMO.
Regarding the race issue, the "terrorist" garb, etc., I think that's all B.S. Some people love to say America "isn't ready" for a black president, or a woman president. I think we're quite ready for either (as long as the woman isn't Hillary). If people are so ignorant as to confuse traditional African garb with Muslim garb, and then somehow ascribe Muslim garb to "terrorist" garb, then they're stupid. Plain and simple. People who equate all Muslims and Islam in general with terrorist extremists are themselves ignorant, and personally I hope they don't vote. There should be a minimum IQ requirement for voting, if you ask me. Race nor gender nor religion (or lack thereof) should ever be a disqualifier when it comes to political office.
TravMan162
18-03-2008 19:50:44
[quoteadaf4da2b9="dmorris68"]
Regarding the race issue, the "terrorist" garb, etc., I think that's all B.S. Some people love to say America "isn't ready" for a black president, or a woman president. I think we're quite ready for either (as long as the woman isn't Hillary). If people are so ignorant as to confuse traditional African garb with Muslim garb, and then somehow ascribe Muslim garb to "terrorist" garb, then they're stupid. Plain and simple. People who equate all Muslims and Islam in general with terrorist extremists are themselves ignorant, and personally I hope they don't vote. There should be a minimum IQ requirement for voting, if you ask me. Race nor gender nor religion (or lack thereof) should ever be a disqualifier when it comes to political office.[/quoteadaf4da2b9]
I totally agree with you here, however the fact remains. People are ignorant, people equate traditional African garb to Muslim garb, and people attribute all Muslims to terrorism. Doesn't make them smart, but the truth of the matter is, it's an issue and they will vote accordingly. I'm not saying that the majority of people will let this affect their vote, but I AM saying that it WILL affect SOME votes, with the quantity therein being a moot point.
Race, gender and religion shouldn't be a disqualifier, you're absolutely right, but that is coming from you, a well educated, intelligent person. For the part of the country that isn't, and the percentage of people that don't know nor care about what the hell is going on in the world, they will base their votes off this. Plain and simple. That's probably why they do smear campaigns. To swing the votes of idiots. And unfortunately, given the circumstances, this smear campaign could be particularly effective.
dmorris68
18-03-2008 20:34:44
I really don't believe it will be that effective. In fact, it will likely backfire. Obama handles these things with much more grace than Hillary -- he's just more believable in every way I think. He's handled himself well and bounced back from every contrived "controversy" so far.
Bottom line is, die-hard Clinton supporters will make much of it, just like die-hard Obama supporters will make much of anything that could be construed as negative about Hillary. Neither will sway the supporters of the other. However I don't think those on the fence typically buy into all the distractions of personal attacks. There are always pockets of idiots, but I have faith in the majority of my fellow citizens seeing through all the personal attacks and focusing on issues. The simple fact that Obama (a black [well, half-black] man) and Clinton (a woman) have both cleared the Democratic field of wealthy, white males, says a lot about the majority of the country and their modernism. Whether I agree with my fellow citizens on the issues or not, as long as they form their opinions based on the issues and not on the sleazy drama, then I can respect them. I expect and certainly hope the ignorant people on all sides will be drowned out by the informed majority.
good2speed
19-03-2008 16:03:52
^^^^^
Would you always vote republican? Are you that diehard republican?
If the devil himself won the rep nomination would you vote for him in the general election?
dmorris68
19-03-2008 16:13:27
Absolutely not. As I've posted at length in the past, probably not this thread though, I tend to lean convervative, but am very much a moderate on most issues. I think a lot of John McCain and he gets my vote first, but it would not hurt my feelings if Obama won. In fact I always said before McCain locked in the nomination that if he DIDN'T get it and Obama did, I would likely vote Obama over any of the other Republicans. My ideal general election would be McCain vs. Obama, because then I could live with "losing." But I shudder at the thought of Hillary winning, I just can't stand her as a person, she has no integrity as far as I'm concerned, and I disagree with her on most issues. And where I might agree on an issue, I don't care for her strategy for it.
On the contrary, what I [bec2361dd1d]am[/bec2361dd1d] a die-hard believer in is the dissolution of all registered parties. In my ideal world, every candidate would be an independent, campaigning on the issues as they stand personally, and not as a proxy for a consortium of string-pullers that they have to be beholden to.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, I don't believe it will ever happen. Nor do I believe any independent or someone from a 3rd party will likely ever be elected President.
good2speed
19-03-2008 16:19:51
ok. THX for the clarification. My memory comes and goes. I apologize for not reading the thread carefully enough.
I don't vote for one party and I am not a member of one party. I vote for who I think will best lead the country, and in this case that would be McCain.
Like Dave, I lean a bit to the "right". There are certain issues that I agree with that 'conservatives' would consider as 'too liberal' and certain issues that I agree with that 'liberals' would consider as 'far right'.
I believe if you stick with one party, you are nothing more than a tool. You should always keep an open mind.
ForceBucks
19-03-2008 17:24:04
Yes, he can.
Requiem
19-03-2008 18:46:13
My main goal is for a Democrat to be in office; however, I'd prefer Hillary. Obama may be able to speak well, but where is his true substance? He plagiarizes, he has suspicious ties with a multitude of people (Rezko and Wright). Also, I don't think Obama has the motivation that Hillary has to handle the problems that us Americans face. Either way though, anyone is better than McCain.
michae229
19-03-2008 22:20:20
[quotefcc5be4c61="Requiem"]My main goal is for a Democrat to be in office; however, I'd prefer Hillary. Obama may be able to speak well, but where is his true substance? He plagiarizes, he has suspicious ties with a multitude of people (Rezko and Wright). Also, I don't think Obama has the motivation that Hillary has to handle the problems that us Americans face. Either way though, anyone is better than McCain.[/quotefcc5be4c61]
umm Hilary and Obama are the same on most plans and issues and look at each of their campaign's Hillary cant run one with people leaving every month, how can she run the country if she cant run and handle her campaign?
so you think the 3AM commercial was a legitimate thing to talk about ,fear not hope?
and she didn't do shit when Bill was in office and records show it........
Powerbook
20-03-2008 04:06:32
I don't care if you hate Hillary. You couldn't be more wrong. Hillary happened to influence Bill's many decisions. Your comment was an opinion not fact.
[quote08c7a366be="michae229"][quote08c7a366be="Requiem"]My main goal is for a Democrat to be in office; however, I'd prefer Hillary. Obama may be able to speak well, but where is his true substance? He plagiarizes, he has suspicious ties with a multitude of people (Rezko and Wright). Also, I don't think Obama has the motivation that Hillary has to handle the problems that us Americans face. Either way though, anyone is better than McCain.[/quote08c7a366be]
umm Hilary and Obama are the same on most plans and issues and look at each of their campaign's Hillary cant run one with people leaving every month, how can she run the country if she cant run and handle her campaign?
so you think the 3AM commercial was a legitimate thing to talk about ,fear not hope?
and she didn't do shit when Bill was in office and records show it........[/quote08c7a366be]
michae229
20-03-2008 09:32:50
[quoted7449a872e="Powerbook"]I don't care if you hate Hillary. You couldn't be more wrong. Hillary happened to influence Bill's many decisions. Your comment was an opinion not fact.
[quoted7449a872e="michae229"][quoted7449a872e="Requiem"]My main goal is for a Democrat to be in office; however, I'd prefer Hillary. Obama may be able to speak well, but where is his true substance? He plagiarizes, he has suspicious ties with a multitude of people (Rezko and Wright). Also, I don't think Obama has the motivation that Hillary has to handle the problems that us Americans face. Either way though, anyone is better than McCain.[/quoted7449a872e]
umm Hilary and Obama are the same on most plans and issues and look at each of their campaign's Hillary cant run one with people leaving every month, how can she run the country if she cant run and handle her campaign?
so you think the 3AM commercial was a legitimate thing to talk about ,fear not hope?
and she didn't do shit when Bill was in office and records show it........[/quoted7449a872e][/quoted7449a872e]
its fact says so in the records released yesterday her influence was down the toilet when the lobbiest bought her off on health care.
Powerbook
20-03-2008 09:44:02
[quoteddc1c6ae3c="michae229"][quoteddc1c6ae3c="Powerbook"]I don't care if you hate Hillary. You couldn't be more wrong. Hillary happened to influence Bill's many decisions. Your comment was an opinion not fact.
[quoteddc1c6ae3c="michae229"][quoteddc1c6ae3c="Requiem"]My main goal is for a Democrat to be in office; however, I'd prefer Hillary. Obama may be able to speak well, but where is his true substance? He plagiarizes, he has suspicious ties with a multitude of people (Rezko and Wright). Also, I don't think Obama has the motivation that Hillary has to handle the problems that us Americans face. Either way though, anyone is better than McCain.[/quoteddc1c6ae3c]
umm Hilary and Obama are the same on most plans and issues and look at each of their campaign's Hillary cant run one with people leaving every month, how can she run the country if she cant run and handle her campaign?
so you think the 3AM commercial was a legitimate thing to talk about ,fear not hope?
and she didn't do shit when Bill was in office and records show it........[/quoteddc1c6ae3c][/quoteddc1c6ae3c]
its fact says so in the records released yesterday her influence was down the toilet when the lobbiest bought her off on health care.[/quoteddc1c6ae3c]
You said " and look at each of their campaign's Hillary cant run one with people leaving every month, how can she run the country if she cant run and handle her campaign?"
Her campaign seems to be running quite well at this point holding a national lead in polls over Obama. Look at the facts first before formulating opinions. Hillary did help Bill make many important decisions. Just because you loathe her you cannot say she was no help with Bill. When you talk about Hillary being "bought out" what about your lovely Obama? Take a look at his shady dealings as well. No politician right now is innocent. It seems some of you would never vote for Clinton even if her policies were the best of all the candidates just because you are still angry about her not leaving Bill Clinton. I could care less about Bill's sexual life. The only thing that pissed me off was him lying under oath. Otherwise he was a very good president. I hate it when people in my school don't even look at the facts or look into the candidates. Some of them aren't voting for Obama because they think he is some type of secret terrorist, while others aren't voting for Clinton because she stayed with her husband. Things such as this really piss me off.
It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, we need another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush. ) Haha I love that comment she made.
michae229
20-03-2008 10:21:48
[quote857d71765d="Powerbook"][quote857d71765d="michae229"][quote857d71765d="Powerbook"]I don't care if you hate Hillary. You couldn't be more wrong. Hillary happened to influence Bill's many decisions. Your comment was an opinion not fact.
[quote857d71765d="michae229"][quote857d71765d="Requiem"]My main goal is for a Democrat to be in office; however, I'd prefer Hillary. Obama may be able to speak well, but where is his true substance? He plagiarizes, he has suspicious ties with a multitude of people (Rezko and Wright). Also, I don't think Obama has the motivation that Hillary has to handle the problems that us Americans face. Either way though, anyone is better than McCain.[/quote857d71765d]
umm Hilary and Obama are the same on most plans and issues and look at each of their campaign's Hillary cant run one with people leaving every month, how can she run the country if she cant run and handle her campaign?
so you think the 3AM commercial was a legitimate thing to talk about ,fear not hope?
and she didn't do shit when Bill was in office and records show it........[/quote857d71765d][/quote857d71765d]
its fact says so in the records released yesterday her influence was down the toilet when the lobbiest bought her off on health care.[/quote857d71765d]
You said " and look at each of their campaign's Hillary cant run one with people leaving every month, how can she run the country if she cant run and handle her campaign?"
Her campaign seems to be running quite well at this point holding a national lead in polls over Obama. Look at the facts first before formulating opinions. Hillary did help Bill make many important decisions. Just because you loathe her you cannot say she was no help with Bill. When you talk about Hillary being "bought out" what about your lovely Obama? Take a look at his shady dealings as well. No politician right now is innocent. It seems some of you would never vote for Clinton even if her policies were the best of all the candidates just because you are still angry about her not leaving Bill Clinton. I could care less about Bill's sexual life. The only thing that pissed me off was him lying under oath. Otherwise he was a very good president. I hate it when people in my school don't even look at the facts or look into the candidates. Some of them aren't voting for Obama because they think he is some type of secret terrorist, while others aren't voting for Clinton because she stayed with her husband. Things such as this really piss me off.
It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, we need another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush. ) Haha I love that comment she made.[/quote857d71765d]
yea her campaign is benefiting because of the crap his pastor said.....
and yes look at her campaign the lady that made the racist remarks, the campaign aidvisor that left, spreading dumb commericals of the 3AM phone call, spreading racist pictures, and her loaning herself money.
I hate it when she gets credit for crap she hasn't done BILL did those things not her and if she cant keep control of her campaign how can she run a country.
Obama has...
1.won mores states
2.more votes
3.more money
4.and more delegates
when Hillary wins any of those come talk to me, lol don't give me poll crap that fluctuates every week
Powerbook
20-03-2008 10:37:58
Um this poll has been the same for the past week. How do you know she did not give Bill advice on anything? Were you in their bedroom as well?
good2speed
20-03-2008 10:40:33
YES ME BILL, Hillary, and Monica were having an orgy. Obama and his wife couldnt get in.
michae229
20-03-2008 11:46:43
[quote09fef91b28="Powerbook"]Um this poll has been the same for the past week. How do you know she did not give Bill advice on anything? Were you in their bedroom as well?[/quote09fef91b28]
lol are you serious "bedroom" like i said documents prove she didn't do shit.
and yes this weeks polls when the pastors comments came up you don't think their is a relation to that?
"cough"
http//www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/?p1=email_to_a_friend
http//youtube.com/watch?v=xtAja20kTCA
http//blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
care to explain these, go ahead find the Rezko link for Obama while i look for Hillary's very good experience lol.
Powerbook
20-03-2008 12:48:12
[quote82bdbab987="michae229"][quote82bdbab987="Powerbook"]Um this poll has been the same for the past week. How do you know she did not give Bill advice on anything? Were you in their bedroom as well?[/quote82bdbab987]
lol are you serious "bedroom" like i said documents prove she didn't do shit.
and yes this weeks polls when the pastors comments came up you don't think their is a relation to that?
"cough"
http//www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/?p1=email_to_a_friend
http//youtube.com/watch?v=xtAja20kTCA
http//blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
care to explain these, go ahead find the Rezko link for Obama while i look for Hillary's very good experience lol.[/quote82bdbab987]
Look you don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how do you know she did not offer him any helpful hints, tips, and so on? Your documents can show all the conversations she had with her husband?
michae229
20-03-2008 13:15:28
[quoteccf8f6d4c0="Powerbook"][quoteccf8f6d4c0="michae229"][quoteccf8f6d4c0="Powerbook"]Um this poll has been the same for the past week. How do you know she did not give Bill advice on anything? Were you in their bedroom as well?[/quoteccf8f6d4c0]
lol are you serious "bedroom" like i said documents prove she didn't do shit.
and yes this weeks polls when the pastors comments came up you don't think their is a relation to that?
"cough"
http//www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/?p1=email_to_a_friend
http//youtube.com/watch?v=xtAja20kTCA
http//blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
care to explain these, go ahead find the Rezko link for Obama while i look for Hillary's very good experience lol.[/quoteccf8f6d4c0]
Look you don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how do you know she did not offer him any helpful hints, tips, and so on? Your documents can show all the conversations she had with her husband?[/quoteccf8f6d4c0]
lol why am i arguing with you? Obama is practically guaranteed the nomination till you can prove the 4 points i made about Obama that Hillary can beat which "you cant", how is she going to sway the supers she can win PA Obama is ahead of her in the rest of the states and no Michigan or florida revote lmao.
she was for NAFTA
http//www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1933416820080319
Powerbook
20-03-2008 13:24:27
[quote78af71bea3="michae229"][quote78af71bea3="Powerbook"][quote78af71bea3="michae229"][quote78af71bea3="Powerbook"]Um this poll has been the same for the past week. How do you know she did not give Bill advice on anything? Were you in their bedroom as well?[/quote78af71bea3]
lol are you serious "bedroom" like i said documents prove she didn't do shit.
and yes this weeks polls when the pastors comments came up you don't think their is a relation to that?
"cough"
http//www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/?p1=email_to_a_friend
http//youtube.com/watch?v=xtAja20kTCA
http//blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
care to explain these, go ahead find the Rezko link for Obama while i look for Hillary's very good experience lol.[/quote78af71bea3]
Look you don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how do you know she did not offer him any helpful hints, tips, and so on? Your documents can show all the conversations she had with her husband?[/quote78af71bea3]
lol why am i arguing with you? Obama is practically guaranteed the nomination till you can prove the 4 points i made about Obama that Hillary can beat which "you cant", how is she going to sway the supers she can win PA Obama is ahead of her in the rest of the states and no Michigan or florida revote lmao.
she was for NAFTA
http//www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1933416820080319[/quote78af71bea3]
I didn't say she is going to win the nomination. Things look good for Obama, but you never know what can happen. Bush is in the white house isn't he? )
michae229
20-03-2008 13:30:33
[quote655212f25c="Powerbook"][quote655212f25c="michae229"][quote655212f25c="Powerbook"][quote655212f25c="michae229"][quote655212f25c="Powerbook"]Um this poll has been the same for the past week. How do you know she did not give Bill advice on anything? Were you in their bedroom as well?[/quote655212f25c]
lol are you serious "bedroom" like i said documents prove she didn't do shit.
and yes this weeks polls when the pastors comments came up you don't think their is a relation to that?
"cough"
http//www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/?p1=email_to_a_friend
http//youtube.com/watch?v=xtAja20kTCA
http//blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
care to explain these, go ahead find the Rezko link for Obama while i look for Hillary's very good experience lol.[/quote655212f25c]
Look you don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is how do you know she did not offer him any helpful hints, tips, and so on? Your documents can show all the conversations she had with her husband?[/quote655212f25c]
lol why am i arguing with you? Obama is practically guaranteed the nomination till you can prove the 4 points i made about Obama that Hillary can beat which "you cant", how is she going to sway the supers she can win PA Obama is ahead of her in the rest of the states and no Michigan or florida revote lmao.
she was for NAFTA
http//www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1933416820080319[/quote655212f25c]
I didn't say she is going to win the nomination. Things look good for Obama, but you never know what can happen. Bush is in the white house isn't he? )[/quote655212f25c]
thats the reason what happened then, wont happen now if they give it to her, lets say everything ended today their will be an outcry in the party. lots of hypocrites, democrats where sure bitching when Gore lost the general election on bull, i would doubt they would do the same in their own party.
bruman
20-03-2008 14:14:36
[quoteee540847b2="Powerbook"]Um Clinton won the Texas primary..... Caucuses are stupid. If Florida and Michigan have a revote or if the delegates are seated Clinton will come out on top. I still have yet to see what Obama will change.[/quoteee540847b2]
Obama still got more delegates in Texas and that is all that matters. So Obama did win Texas.
hehehhehe
12-05-2008 08:48:39
According to this site which aggregates state by state polls, Obama would lose the general election to McCain getting only 237 electoral votes, while Clinton would win with 280 electoral votes.
It kind of makes sense, given Clinton's higher popularity in the swing states like FL and OH.
http//www.electoral-vote.com/[]http//www.electoral-vote.com/
Have the dem voters dug their own grave?
doylnea
12-05-2008 09:03:23
I remember that site from the 2004 election - they have great data and good aggregation. However, I think it's far too soon to start predicting general election races in those states. For one thing, some of the losses for Obama are by 1-2% points, which is way inside the margin of error. In addition, some of the data is from late February. If you look at the progression of data from the polls as Obama's chances of winning the nomination increase, you can see his percentages growing.
Nevertheless, I am worried that this long nomination race, while drawing a much larger number of people to register than ever before, may be very divisive for the party.
Inaccurate data. Obama would not lose in Alaska by such a small margin (they're saying a loss of [b7b222358bb]only[/b7b222358bb] 5%)... Alaska is the biggest "Red State" of them all... Hell, only 400 people participated in the Democratic caucuses, where as 12,000+ participated in the Republican caucuses.
hehehhehe
12-05-2008 09:34:22
Yeah, it's definitely too soon I agree. Who knows what will happen before the general election. In any case, a few new polls in a swing state can bring the poll numbers in favor of Obama at any time. I just wanted to note that Clinton is doing better under this simulation because of her support in the important swing states.
But I've been following the site for a while, and IIRC Obama had the advantage vs. McCain earlier on and used to lead in electoral votes (again, this can switch pretty quickly). I think there are also many states where Obama's percentage is either stagnant or decreasing as time goes on, although there is no state where there is a clear switch of allegiance, although Ohio is close (same polls show his numbers decreasing). I don't see an upward trend for Obama but in any case, there are different polls using different methods (I suppose) being shown so it's hard to say anything concrete unless we have enough numbers from the same pollster.
I agree with you about the long nomination race and wonder if the dems have not already screwed up an election they were supposed to have easily won.
[quote269b71bbb2="h3x"]Inaccurate data. Obama would not lose in Alaska by such a small margin (they're saying a loss of [b269b71bbb2]only[/b269b71bbb2] 5%)... Alaska is the biggest "Red State" of them all... Hell, only 400 people participated in the Democratic caucuses, where as 12,000+ participated in the Republican caucuses.[/quote269b71bbb2]
If you look at the Clinton numbers, you can see they are close to what happened in 2004. Just because you perceive numbers different from you believe should be the case, doesn't make them inaccurate data. These are just polls, and unless the pollster intentionally made an effort to have more people favor Obama, you see what answers they collected, period.
I know they are just polls. But I'd really like to know the source of the poll results for Alaska... Because it does not sound right. People up here sincerely hate the guy (especially after the whole "clinging to guns and religion" issue).
It comes as no surprise that Clinton would have a low rating, she only received 100 votes when she went up against Obama. But people here are very Pro McCain (and its not like its a big state with different counties, there are only 3 major cities [Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau] and the rest of the land is scarce in population).
There is something screwy with the Alaska poll (wherever the hell the data came from). I can't say anything about the rest of the states.
dmorris68
12-05-2008 10:16:33
Do these polls take into account the highly-divisive Dem's who claim they'll vote for McCain if their chosen candidate (whether Clinton or Obama) doesn't get the nomination?
The way I was last reading those numbers, if most of those people threatening to jump the aisle stick to their word, I'm not sure how either could beat McCain. OTOH if the Dem's unite behind the nominee as you would expect, McCain will have a tough time. But I hope he pulls it off. ;)
hehehhehe
12-05-2008 10:16:36
[quote1886696f14="h3x"]I know they are just polls. But I'd really like to know the source of the poll results for Alaska... Because it does not sound right. People up here sincerely hate the guy (especially after the whole "clinging to guns and religion" issue).
It comes as no surprise that Clinton would have a low rating, she only received 100 votes when she went up against Obama. But people here are very Pro McCain (and its not like its a big state with different counties, there are only 3 major cities [Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau] and the rest of the land is scarce in population).
There is something screwy with the Alaska poll (wherever the hell the data came from). I can't say anything about the rest of the states.[/quote1886696f14]
I think you're comparing anecdotal ("People up here sincerely hate the guy") with the poll data which is more empirical, and that doesn't always mesh well. If the same Clinton polls have similar numbers to the 2004 numbers, and Obama is clearly more favored than her in Alaska as you say, why does the data have to be 'screwy' if it shows that he fares much better than Clinton against McCain? I understand that 5% seems kind of low but like I said, these are just polls so I wouldn't look too much into it, and remember the margin of error.
The pollsters are listed next to the poll numbers. If you go to surveyusa, they do a list of the best pollsters after some of the elections (maybe all, I just checked) so you can see how accurate they have been. Surveyusa hasn't done too badly.
DRay9911
04-06-2008 08:09:11
anybody else watch the three speeches last night (clinton, mccain, obama)?
obama had the crowd going like he was a rock star.
he almost makes me want to register to vote.
-dan
tylerc
04-06-2008 08:14:20
You should be registered to vote anyway.
I wish Clinton would just STFU and admit defeat already. I don't like either Obama or Clinton, but I really hate Clinton. Socialized health care? No thanks, I'd rather keep that 30% of my money.
doylnea
04-06-2008 09:11:15
[quotef8345e0f4a="tylerc"]You should be registered to vote anyway.
I wish Clinton would just STFU and admit defeat already. I don't like either Obama or Clinton, but I really hate Clinton. Socialized health care? No thanks, I'd rather keep that 30% of my money.[/quotef8345e0f4a]
...says the guy who has (likely) never paid for health care, let alone never not been covered by health care coverage.
I want to keep as much of my own money as possible, like everyone else. But I believe that insuring those who are uninsured will ultimately lower my insurance rates, since I am healthy, and my premiums, under many of the proposed plans should go down, as I'm not supplementing the uninsured via my premiums.
Powerbook
04-06-2008 09:17:01
Yeah, I am surprised she did not concede. I was a Hillary supporter. I now support Obama. My thinking is she is trying to secure a role in the new White House. I hope Obama picks her as VP. I know a good amount of people do not like this, but I think he would stand a better chance against John McCain against her. Each almost got 18 million votes. She claims she has more total votes than him winning the popular vote. I'm not sure if it is true, but that really does mean a lot. Together both of them could beat McCain as of now it appears like. Things could always change in politics. Heck, McCain held the lead in polls for a while.
tylerc
04-06-2008 10:32:11
[quote4bbf5a4575="doylnea"][quote4bbf5a4575="tylerc"]You should be registered to vote anyway.
I wish Clinton would just STFU and admit defeat already. I don't like either Obama or Clinton, but I really hate Clinton. Socialized health care? No thanks, I'd rather keep that 30% of my money.[/quote4bbf5a4575]
...says the guy who has (likely) never paid for health care, let alone never not been covered by health care coverage.
I want to keep as much of my own money as possible, like everyone else. But I believe that insuring those who are uninsured will ultimately lower my insurance rates, since I am healthy, and my premiums, under many of the proposed plans should go down, as I'm not supplementing the uninsured via my premiums.[/quote4bbf5a4575]
I don't know, you're right. However, I will when I get a real job/am out of college. When that time comes, I don't want 50-60%+ of my income going to the government to pay for health care for other people. Selfish, yes, but at the end of the day, I'm looking out for #1, as I'm sure most people are.
However, national health care could also worsen the system. Where do people in Canada/UK go that have money to get a surgery done? The United States, because in the UK/Canada, you're going to (most likely) spend months or years waiting to get a surgery done, or days waiting in the ER. I think that there would still be private practices and private insurance, but I still don't want to be paying more money than I have to, when it's my turn to raise a family and pay the bills.
dmorris68
04-06-2008 11:32:16
[quote496b8cadc9="Powerbook"]Yeah, I am surprised she did not concede. I was a Hillary supporter. I now support Obama. My thinking is she is trying to secure a role in the new White House. I hope Obama picks her as VP. I know a good amount of people do not like this, but I think he would stand a better chance against John McCain against her. Each almost got 18 million votes. She claims she has more total votes than him winning the popular vote. I'm not sure if it is true, but that really does mean a lot. Together both of them could beat McCain as of now it appears like. Things could always change in politics. Heck, McCain held the lead in polls for a while.[/quote496b8cadc9]
Actually there is a credible school of thought that says if Obama picks Hillary for VP, McCain stands a much better chance of beating him. The reason being the intense hatred of Clinton by not only the GOP and the majority of independents and moderates but also the wide rift between Obama and Clinton supporters, which could galvanize a movement to vote McCain in. Prior polls have shown a large number of both Obama and Clinton supporters saying they'll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't clinch the nomination. I'm hoping for a McCain win, but I forsee some GOP people jumping the aisle to get behind Obama, especially if he picks a more moderate or even Republican for his VP ticket. Yes, there is more than one Republican rumored to be on his list of potential VP picks. So I'm thinking that his picking Hillary could backfire on him big-time.
Personally, as I've posted before, I won't have a problem with Obama as President. In fact, if he were to pick the right running mate, I might actually be swayed to change my vote. However I won't touch anything remotely connected to Hillary Clinton.
Powerbook
04-06-2008 11:40:20
[quote8bc3aee192="dmorris68"][quote8bc3aee192="Powerbook"]Yeah, I am surprised she did not concede. I was a Hillary supporter. I now support Obama. My thinking is she is trying to secure a role in the new White House. I hope Obama picks her as VP. I know a good amount of people do not like this, but I think he would stand a better chance against John McCain against her. Each almost got 18 million votes. She claims she has more total votes than him winning the popular vote. I'm not sure if it is true, but that really does mean a lot. Together both of them could beat McCain as of now it appears like. Things could always change in politics. Heck, McCain held the lead in polls for a while.[/quote8bc3aee192]
Actually there is a credible school of thought that says if Obama picks Hillary for VP, McCain stands a much better chance of beating him. The reason being the intense hatred of Clinton by not only the GOP and the majority of independents and moderates but also the wide rift between Obama and Clinton supporters, which could galvanize a movement to vote McCain in. Prior polls have shown a large number of both Obama and Clinton supporters saying they'll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't clinch the nomination. I'm hoping for a McCain win, but I forsee some GOP people jumping the aisle to get behind Obama, especially if he picks a more moderate or even Republican for his VP ticket. Yes, there is more than one Republican on his list of potential VP picks. So I'm thinking that his picking Hillary could backfire on him big-time.
Personally, as I've posted before, I won't have a problem with Obama as President. In fact, if he were to pick the right running mate, I might actually be swayed to change my vote. However I won't touch anything remotely connected to Hillary Clinton.[/quote8bc3aee192]
Most polls that I have seen show that it is more likely for Clinton supporters to switch to McCain than Obama supporters to McCain. This was on CNN. I was watching CNN last night and they showed how the "dream ticket" would dominate McCain based on the current situation. CNN might be wrong, but I still think they would beat McCain. Just talking to people like my mother, I can honestly see Hillary supporters voting for McCain like many polls have said. I have seen a poll like you are talking about, however Clinton almost had 18 million people vote for her. That's one help of a running mate in most people's eyes. Hillary supporters would probably vote for the ticket. This is all speculation though. We have seen polls backfire and be very incorrect. Who knows what will happen on election day. Many polls suggested John Kerry would beat Bush, however I always felt that it would not happen.
tylerc
04-06-2008 11:54:05
[quote8fbedbf620="CNN"]Hillary Clinton While the "dream ticket" of a Obama-Clinton campaign could help harness Clinton's powerbase of women and white working-class Democrats, the prospect of uniting the two rivals has won mixed support. A non-scientific CNN.com poll said 60 percent of people were not in favor of the move[/quote8fbedbf620]
Powerbook
04-06-2008 12:13:58
[quote7dd8923a6e="tylerc"][quote7dd8923a6e="CNN"]Hillary Clinton While the "dream ticket" of a Obama-Clinton campaign could help harness Clinton's powerbase of women and white working-class Democrats, the prospect of uniting the two rivals has won mixed support. A non-scientific CNN.com poll said 60 percent of people were not in favor of the move[/quote7dd8923a6e][/quote7dd8923a6e]
That's a very general poll. I never liked polls like this even though I use them sometimes as well for arguments. Things can change and they simply do not represent everyone. Let's not forget CNN hates Hillary Clinton. Her speech was not very well received. This most likely affected the percentage drastically as well.
doylnea
04-06-2008 12:14:14
The scuttlebutt is that Obama could appoint H. Clinton as a sort of health care czar, Gore as environment czar, and B. Clinton as Secretary of State, thus giving the Clintons the respect and power they crave, and appeasing those who say Clinton needs to be on the ticket, and getting Gore's star power, and fundraising money (he's on the Board of both Apple and Google) and at Kleiner Perkins.
Powerbook
04-06-2008 12:16:14
Hah, I doubt that would all work out. Gore is probably still pissed about the 2000 election and all the irregularities. However, if this could happen it would be amazing.
tylerc
04-06-2008 12:19:49
No, it would not.
J4320
04-06-2008 12:25:45
[quotec66be98974="tylerc"]No, it would not.[/quotec66be98974]
Agreed. I have no idea why you have such a hardon for Hilary, Powerbook. ?
Powerbook
04-06-2008 12:28:46
[quote3867cb5621="J4320"][quote3867cb5621="tylerc"]No, it would not.[/quote3867cb5621]
Agreed. I have no idea why you have such a hardon for Hilary, Powerbook. ?[/quote3867cb5621]
lol, my hardon is now for Barack Obama. I changed my support a while back actually. I could care less who the VP is, however my personal thought is Clinton could help him win. Whatever Obama decides to do I will support him. My mother on the other hand is acting irrational and wants to support John McCain because her candidate is not the nominee of the democratic party. I am making sure she cannot vote this election. D
tylerc
04-06-2008 12:29:01
I just want Hilary to go away. Forever. Socialism FTL!
Powerbook
04-06-2008 12:31:16
I am actually interested in learning more about universal health care. In some countries it has worked well. However, in a business standpoint most say it is a terrible idea. Dmorris probably knows all about it. Anyone want to give some non-biased weigh ins?
tylerc
04-06-2008 12:34:32
http//www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
Cons far outweigh the pros. Privatizing should be more prevalent in this country. Market-based economies are the only way to go, and the freer the market, the better.
doylnea
04-06-2008 12:46:08
[quote53ded2293f="tylerc"]http//www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
Cons far outweigh the pros. Privatizing should be more prevalent in this country. Market-based economies are the only way to go, and the freer the market, the better.[/quote53ded2293f]
so you'll be supporting Bob Barr?
Powerbook
04-06-2008 12:55:16
As a person who has been through a lot in his life both emotionally and economically, I am not opposed to looking out for others and not just my own neck. I see that a lot of the cons outweigh the pros, but sometimes isn't it important as people we must look out for one another? Who knows someday it could be you that will benefit from it. Perhaps there is a mixed solution to our health care problem that can help minimize the cons.
Powerbook
04-06-2008 12:58:50
HAHA. Equal amount of pros and cons for going to war with Iran? Please. Is it me or does this site have a conservative bias instead of really being moderate?
http//www.balancedpolitics.org/iran_war.htm
CollidgeGraduit
04-06-2008 13:04:47
![]("c0e0e04251)
http//www.janwhite.net/links/convention.gif[" alt=""/imgc0e0e04251]
Powerbook
04-06-2008 13:07:35
HAHA that made me lol, +KMA. Who is the lady next to the house speaker lol?
dmorris68
04-06-2008 13:52:27
[quote65dba34619="doylnea"]The scuttlebutt is that Obama could appoint H. Clinton as a sort of health care czar, Gore as environment czar, and B. Clinton as Secretary of State, thus giving the Clintons the respect and power they crave, and appeasing those who say Clinton needs to be on the ticket, and getting Gore's star power, and fundraising money (he's on the Board of both Apple and Google) and at Kleiner Perkins.[/quote65dba34619]
I was aware of the possibility of her being offered some healthcare-related post. Personally I don't think she'd settle for that. Gore might be good in an "environmental" post, but keep the idiot out of any real policy-making position. As for Bill, if he hadn't gone completely off his rocker in the last few years I wouldn't have a problem with him as SecState, however now I think he's the last person we'd want as the chief diplomat.
So as to the entire scenario you describe, I can't imagine a much worse outcome. lishudderli
Seriously, I think I'd prefer a Constitutional Amendment that allows Bush Jr. to run for a 3rd term. P
And LOL @ CG's image. They should have pasted Gore's head on the lady in the back. lol
tucker1003
04-06-2008 15:48:10
Well hopefully all candidates get their heads our of eachothers "colorful remark". I want to know what each of them are going to bring to the table instead of just saying "we need to change"
I guess it is about time to start paying attention, I will only vote if I actually can make an educated decision.
J4320
04-06-2008 21:06:06
http//abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4705151&page=1
YUSSSSSSSSSSS
michae229
04-06-2008 21:35:07
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4&eurl=http//www.facebook.com/findfriends.php?expand=pymk&ref=hpb
do you really what that running the country?!
theysayjump
04-06-2008 21:50:10
[quote0d06f396a6="tylerc"][quote0d06f396a6="doylnea"][quote0d06f396a6="tylerc"]You should be registered to vote anyway.
I wish Clinton would just STFU and admit defeat already. I don't like either Obama or Clinton, but I really hate Clinton. Socialized health care? No thanks, I'd rather keep that 30% of my money.[/quote0d06f396a6]
...says the guy who has (likely) never paid for health care, let alone never not been covered by health care coverage.
I want to keep as much of my own money as possible, like everyone else. But I believe that insuring those who are uninsured will ultimately lower my insurance rates, since I am healthy, and my premiums, under many of the proposed plans should go down, as I'm not supplementing the uninsured via my premiums.[/quote0d06f396a6]
I don't know, you're right. However, I will when I get a real job/am out of college. When that time comes, I don't want 50-60%+ of my income going to the government to pay for health care for other people. Selfish, yes, but at the end of the day, I'm looking out for #1, as I'm sure most people are.
However, national health care could also worsen the system. Where do people in Canada/UK go that have money to get a surgery done? The United States, because in the UK/Canada, you're going to (most likely) spend months or years waiting to get a surgery done, or days waiting in the ER. I think that there would still be private practices and private insurance, but I still don't want to be paying more money than I have to, when it's my turn to raise a family and pay the bills.[/quote0d06f396a6]
For the record; in the UK we have private health care too, so if you have money and you need surgery done (which by the way, even on the NHS if it's even remotely life-threatening, there's no waiting list for you) you can still go private.
Also, and I can only speak for myself and my family over there, the most we paid in overall taxes on each pay-cheque was roughly 22%, not 50%-60%. Maybe it's changed in the almost 5 years I've been here, but I can't see it changing by 30%-40%.
I know a few people on the 'other side of the pond' and one person has said that it's 20% (if you go past a certain amount of earnings).
dmorris68
05-06-2008 15:32:32
[quote00f1835386="theysayjump"]For the record; in the UK we have private health care too, so if you have money and you need surgery done (which by the way, even on the NHS if it's even remotely life-threatening, there's no waiting list for you) you can still go private.
Also, and I can only speak for myself and my family over there, the most we paid in overall taxes on each pay-cheque was roughly 22%, not 50%-60%. Maybe it's changed in the almost 5 years I've been here, but I can't see it changing by 30%-40%.[/quote00f1835386]
But IIRC the UK, as much of Europe, is taxed overall at a higher rate than most Americans, especially when you factor in income tax + 17.5% VAT. When I lived in Germany for 3 years, the VAT sucked -- fortunately being a US servicemember I was able to get my VAT back through rebates.
Germany, for example, has an excellent system of socialized healthcare, but the cost of living is liextremelyli high there. The only thing cheap was beer. ) Rent and utilities were outrageous, as was just about any sort of consumer goods. We had some German friends over there, one was a Major in the German Air Force. The US allows (or did at the time) servicemembers to bring guests to the base/post exchanges (kind of like a big American department store, with comparable US prices). The first time I took the Major to the post exchange in Nuremburg, he was giddy like a kid in a candy store, buying a couple thousand dollars worth of stuff. )
I haven't lived in the UK yet, but from what I've heard from other UK friends, it's a similar situation over there. Would you agree, TSJ?
While I do agree that the US needs healthcare reform in a big way, I'm not in favor of a government owned & operated, socialized system. We already have Medicare/Medicaid for elderly or indigent children, and most cities have free or low-cost clinics operated by the state or local governments. Where reform is needed is on the big business side of healthcare private insurers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, malpractice reform, etc. I support government regulation and subsidies of those industries so as to keep the prices in check, while expanding social programs like Medicare to the poor or those who cannot otherwise obtain private insurance through employer plans or other reasonable means. NOT as handouts to those who licouldli pay for it but refuse to.
ESMcCready
07-06-2008 07:22:01
It is offical...Obama won!
He won the Democratic nomination, he has yet to go up against McCain in November. He hasn't reached the finish line yet.
ESMcCready
07-06-2008 16:07:50
Er yea...I know this. That is what I was saying...you know. Barack won...you know the Dem nomin lilolli
michae229
08-06-2008 23:35:21
again....
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlX9l1g1ZE0&eurl=http//www.jedreport.com/2008/06/brutal.html
do you want this man running the country?
ESMcCready
09-06-2008 06:06:58
That video above is DEFINITELY why I'm not voting for him...
tylerc
09-06-2008 06:13:31
Do we want THIS man?
http//www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaLies.htm
I'm sure there's bias, just playing devil's advocate.
ESMcCready
09-06-2008 07:13:40
How does all those "lies" compare to saying "I don't agree with what most of America wants..."
Thats like saying killing a fly that is sucking your blood is just as bad as shooting someone in the head in cold blood because you wanted to.
But I do see what you are trying to do TylerC lilolli
rutchana666
09-06-2008 07:45:54
If the democrats plan on winning this election, Obama and Clinton need to join forces. Then, MAYBE, they have a chance...
But I still think it's a long shot.
tylerc
09-06-2008 07:48:26
I couldn't watch the video, I'm at work and my computer doesn't have a sound card. I'm not a huge fan of either, but I know that I don't want national health care, and McCain is a big supporter of free markets and even supports the Fair Tax, but I would vote for Ron Paul over either (though the gold standard and privatizing education are silly ideas).
Didn't Ron Paul call Martin Luther King Jr. a "gay pedophile" amongst other things in his newsletters?
Here's some selections worth mentioning
[quote84f4cb2d05]"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."[/quote84f4cb2d05]
[quote84f4cb2d05]"I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."[/quote84f4cb2d05]
[quote84f4cb2d05]The March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter calls Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state."[/quote84f4cb2d05]
Full article with archived newsletters available here http//www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
michae229
09-06-2008 13:01:26
[quoteff06cea186="tylerc"]Do we want THIS man?
http//www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaLies.htm
I'm sure there's bias, just playing devil's advocate.[/quoteff06cea186]
this is so fake its not even funny
tylerc
09-06-2008 13:05:50
I didn't expect you to believe it, you're the most close-minded person here.
ESMcCready
09-06-2008 14:01:10
Ok TylerC response made me lose complete track of the conversation.
Ok, TylerC who are you responding to and...
Does anyone have a website that states ALL the canidates' policies and such?
michae229
09-06-2008 16:13:22
[quote09be9b0fea="tylerc"]I didn't expect you to believe it, you're the most close-minded person here.[/quote09be9b0fea]
the site even looks cheap and your the most closed minded person here stop acting like a douchbag and stay on topic lol link with "FOX news clips"
tylerc
11-06-2008 06:25:08
CollidgeGraduit
11-06-2008 06:33:05
[quote8a0565d6f1="michae229"][quote8a0565d6f1="tylerc"]I didn't expect you to believe it, you're the most close-minded person here.[/quote8a0565d6f1]
the site even looks cheap and your the most closed minded person here stop acting like a douchbag and stay on topic lol link with "FOX news clips"[/quote8a0565d6f1]
You are one of the most close-minded people here. See you in 3 days.
tylerc
11-06-2008 06:39:31
ilu cg
CollidgeGraduit
11-06-2008 06:40:15
[quote79919d3b99="tylerc"]ilu cg[/quote79919d3b99]
<3
theysayjump
11-06-2008 09:11:02
[quote5d49e59766="dmorris68"]But IIRC the UK, as much of Europe, is taxed overall at a higher rate than most Americans, especially when you factor in income tax + 17.5% VAT. When I lived in Germany for 3 years, the VAT sucked -- fortunately being a US servicemember I was able to get my VAT back through rebates.
Germany, for example, has an excellent system of socialized healthcare, but the cost of living is liextremelyli high there. The only thing cheap was beer. ) Rent and utilities were outrageous, as was just about any sort of consumer goods. We had some German friends over there, one was a Major in the German Air Force. The US allows (or did at the time) servicemembers to bring guests to the base/post exchanges (kind of like a big American department store, with comparable US prices). The first time I took the Major to the post exchange in Nuremburg, he was giddy like a kid in a candy store, buying a couple thousand dollars worth of stuff. )
I haven't lived in the UK yet, but from what I've heard from other UK friends, it's a similar situation over there. Would you agree, TSJ?[/quote5d49e59766]
Sorry, I only just saw this.
Yeah, I'd agree to an extent. The VAT is quite high and the cost of living more expensive, but we also make more money over there compared to here. Over there, I worked in a hospital as a porter (I think you guys call them orderlies) and I'd just run around the place taking blood and specimens etc, to various different departments. It was the best job I've had and it paid me roughly $13/hour. My first job back home (not a porter) is the same as my current job and it paid me about $13/hour compared to my job now, where the workload is higher, and I get $7.87.
So back home I'd have enough to give money to my parents for bills and food, pay for the stuff I had to pay for and still have more than enough left over to go to football games, go out, buy beer, clothes, music, porn and I'd be good. Here, the money I make is barely enough to pay the bills and buy food.
Another thing, here there is school tax, local tax, have to pay for garbage pickup, sewer, and there's a tax in PA for the privilege to work here (no joke) and not mention my medical benefits. Back home, we pay for the electric, gas and water and that's it, so it may level itself out compared to the taxes between here and there. So whilst the cost of living over there is more expensive and we're taxed higher, it never bothered me as much as here.
I guess with you guys, you're used to the way you guys live and have things and we're used to the way we live and have things. But to me, whilst the taxes and cost of living are lower here, I'd much rather live back home (and not just because it's home).